CONVENTION SUR Distribution: Générale LES ESPECES · Bonn, Allemagne, 1-3 juillet 2014 Point 5.1.3 de l’ordre du jour PROJET DU PLAN D’ACTION INTERNATIONAL PAR ESPÈCE POUR

Pour des raisons d’économie, ce document est imprimé en nombre limité et ne sera pas distribué en la

réunion. Les délégués sont priés de se munir de leur copie et de ne pas demander de copies supplémentaires.

18ème

RÉUNION DU CONSEIL SCIENTIFIQUE

Bonn, Allemagne, 1-3 juillet 2014

Point 5.1.3 de l’ordre du jour

PROJET DU PLAN D’ACTION INTERNATIONAL

PAR ESPÈCE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARGALI

CMS

CONVENTION SUR LES ESPECES MIGRATRICES

Distribution: Générale PNUE/CMS/ScC18/Doc.5.1.3 23 avril 2014 Français Original: Anglais

Résumé

Suite à l’inscription du mouflon d’Asie ou argali Ovis ammon à

l’Annexe II de la Convention en 2011, un plan d’action

international par espèce a été préparé en collaboration avec les

États de l’aire de répartition et des experts internationaux, et grâce

au soutien financier du Gouvernement fédéral allemand et de

l’Union européenne, à travers le Programme régional sur

l’utilisation durable des ressources naturelles en Asie centrale de la

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

(GIZ).

Le Conseil scientifique est invité à examiner et à approuver

l’avant-projet du Plan d’action pour soumission à la COP11 de la

CMS.

UNEP/CMS/ScC18/Doc.5.1.3

PROJET DU PLAN D’ACTION INTERNATIONAL

PAR ESPÈCE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARGALI

(Préparé par le Secrétariat PNUE/CMS)

1. Suite à la proposition conjointe du Kazakhstan et du Tadjikistan, le mouflon d’Asie ou argali

Ovis ammon a été inscrit à l’Annexe II de la CMS à la dixième réunion de la Conférence des Parties

(COP10) en 2011 (UNEP/CMS/Conf.10.15, Proposition II/1). Dans le même temps, les Parties à la

CMS ont adopté la résolution 10.23 «Les actions concertées et les action en coopération», désignant

l’argali pour des actions en coopération.

2. En 2012, le Secrétariat, en coopération avec les États de l’aire de répartition, des experts

internationaux et avec le soutien du Gouvernement fédéral allemand à travers le Programme régional

sur l’utilisation durable des ressources naturelles en Asie centrale de la Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), a lancé l’élaboration du Plan d’action international par

espèce pour la conservation de l’argali (Ovis ammon), et a chargé des experts indépendants de procéder

à sa compilation. Le Plan d’action a été élaboré avec la contribution d’experts des États de l’aire de

répartition de l’espèce ainsi que d’organisations et d’experts internationaux ayant une expertise en

matière de conservation de l’argali. Sa préparation a été soutenue financièrement par l’Union

européenne dans le cadre de son Projet régional sur la forêt et la gouvernance de la biodiversité incluant

le suivi de l’environnement (FLERMONECA), mis en œuvre par la GIZ.

3. Tenant compte des critères pour le développement de nouveaux instruments de la CMS comme

indiqué dans la résolution 10.16 «Priorités pour les accords de la CMS», le Secrétariat, avec l’appui de

la GIZ, a commandé début 2012 un rapport intitulé «Analyzing Conservation Gaps and Needs for

Enhancing the Conservation of Argali within the Context of the CMS «[Analyse des lacunes et des

besoins de conservation pour renforcer la conservation de l’argali dans le contexte de la CMS]»

(UNEP/CMS/StC40/Doc.21.a/Annex). Ce rapport précise les avantages et les inconvénients de

l’élaboration d’un Mémorandum d’Entente pour la conservation de l’argali et fournit les premières idées

pour un Plan d’action international.

4. L’élaboration de ce Plan d’action s’est poursuivie lors d’un atelier sur la gestion durable des

espèces gibiers d’Asie centrale intitulé «Sustainable Management of Central Asian Game Animals», qui

a eu lieu sur l’île de Vilm, Allemagne (22-26 mars 2012), et a été financé par le Gouvernement fédéral

allemand. Un premier avant-projet a été préparé et discuté lors d’un deuxième atelier de suivi à Bichkek,

Kirghizistan (2-4 décembre 2012). Suite à cette réunion, le document a été développé et examiné par des

experts, conduisant à un deuxième avant-projet qui est présenté en annexe du présent document.

5. Compte tenu de l’aire de répartition de l’espèce, l’avant-projet du Plan d’action ne sera traduit ni

en français ni en espagnol. Toutefois, une traduction de courtoisie sera disponible en russe. Une dernière

série de consultations formelles avec les responsables gouvernementaux de l’aire de répartition est

prévue après discussion du document à la 18e réunion du Conseil scientifique.

Action requise:

Le Conseil scientifique est invité à:

(a) Prendre note de l’avant-projet du Plan d’action international par espèce pour la conservation

de l’argali, et à l’examiner.

(b) Approuver le document pour soumission à la COP11de la CMS.

UNEP/CMS/ScC18/Doc.5.1.3/Annex: Argali Draft SSAP

1

ANNEX

International Single Species Action Plan

for the Conservation of the Argali

Ovis ammon


2

This Single Species Action Plan has been prepared to assist the fulfillment of obligations under:

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of

Wild Animals (CMS)

International Single Species Action Plan

for the Conservation of the Argali

Ovis ammon

CMS Technical Series No. XX

April 2014

Prepared with funding from


3

Support for this action plan:

The development and production of this action plan has been achieved with the financial support of the

European Union via the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) in the

framework of the FLERMONECA Regional Project Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including

Environmental Monitoring.

Compiled by: David Mallon, Navinder Singh, Christiane Röttger1, UNEP / CMS Secretariat, United Nations Premises, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1 , 53113 Bonn, Germany

E-mail for correspondence: [email protected]

List of Contributors:

Muhibullah Fazli (Afghanistan); Alexander Berber, Maksim Levitin (Kazakhstan); Askar Davletbakov,

Nadezhda Emel’yanova, Almaz Musaev, (Kyrgyzstan); Tarun Kathula (India); Onon Yondon, Sukh

Amgalanbaatar (Mongolia); Dinesh Prasad Parajuli (Nepal); Nurali Saidov, Munavvar Alidodov,

Abdulkadyrkhon Maskaev (Tajikistan); Tatiana Yudina (Russian Federation); Alexandr Grigoryants

(Uzbekistan); Sergey Sklyarenko (Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan,

ACBK); Gerhard Damm, Kai-Uwe Wollscheid (International Council for Game and Wildlife

Conservation, CIC), Tom de Meulenaar (CITES Secretariat), Aline Kühl-Stenzel, Melanie Virtue (CMS

Secretariat), Richard Reading (Denver Zoological Foundation); Alexander Dimet (Fauna & Flora

International, FFI); Kathrin Uhlemann, Lira Joldubaeva, Dana Yermolyonok (Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH, GIZ), Marco Festa-Bianchet, Stefan Michel, Andrey Subbotin

(IUCN SSC Caprinae Specialist Group), Raul Valdez (New Mexico State University); Tatjana Rosen

Michel (Panthera); Alexander Esipov (Saiga Conservation Alliance, SCA), Tahir Rasheed (Sustainable

Use Specialist Group-Central Asia), Katalin Kecse-Nagy (TRAFFIC); Richard Harris (University of

Montana), Aili Kang, Stephane Ostrowski, Zalmai Moheb (Wildlife Conservation Society); Michail

Paltsyn, Olga Pereladova (WWF Russia)

Milestones in the production of the Plan:

Proposal for inclusion of Ovis ammon in Appendix II of CMS (by Kazakhstan and Tajikistan)

Workshop “Sustainable Management of Central Asian Game Animals” (22-26 March 2012,

International Nature Conservation Academy Vilm, Germany)

Workshop for the development of an international Action Plan to improve trans-boundary

conservation of Argali (2-4 December 2012, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan)

Rosen, T. 2012. Analyzing Gaps and Options for Enhancing Argali Conservation in Central Asia

within the Context of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

Report prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

(CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

in Central Asia.

Geographical scope:

This International Single Species Action Plan requires implementation in the following countries regularly

supporting Argali (Ovis ammon) populations: Afghanistan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Revision:

This International Single Species Action Plan covers the period 2014 to 2024. A revision should be

undertaken in 2019. However, an emergency review can be undertaken prior to 2019 if there are any

major changes in terms of population status and/or threats demanding different management interventions

to those outlined in this Action Plan.


4

Recommended citation: Mallon, D., Singh, N., and Röttger, C. (2014) International Single Species Action

Plan for the Conservation of the Argali Ovis ammon. CMS Technical Series No. XX. Bonn, Germany.

Picture on the cover: © Askar Davletbakov

Disclaimer:

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP/CMS concerning the legal status of any State,

territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of their frontiers and boundaries.


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 6

1 - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Taxonomy 7 1.2 Distribution 8 1.3. Population 111 1.4. Habitat 144

2 - THREATS ......................................................................................................................................... 144

3 –CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................................................................................................... 188

3.1. International legal status 188 3.2. National policies and legislation 19

3.3. Protected areas 20

3.4. Transboundary initiatives 21

3.5. Trophy hunting 22

3.6. Conservation initiatives 23

4 - FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................... 244

4.1 Goal 24 4.2 Objectives 24 4.3 Results 255 4.4 Actions 25

5 - REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 346

ANNEX 1 ................................................................................................................................ 41


6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Argali (Ovis ammon) are listed on the current IUCN Red List as Near Threatened, because their numbers

are declining due to poaching and competition with livestock. Argali are also listed in Appendix II of the

Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and in the Appendices of

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Many subspecies and forms have been named, based on various characters, including horn size and shape,

body size, coat colour, skull measurements, presence of a ruff, and others. The most widely used

arrangement recognizes nine subspecies, but argali taxonomy remains unresolved and genetic research

may show that some argali populations are characterized by clinal variation. Argali are distributed widely

across eleven countries of Central Asia.

Argali are the largest of the world’s wild sheep, with relatively long, slim legs and a compact, lithe body,

and are adapted to open terrain and to escape danger through flight. They are usually found on rolling hills

and plateaus, mountain slopes and desert hills. Argali are sexually dimorphic and adult males have

massive, curled horns. They are polygynous and live in small to large single-sex herds, which come

together during the mating season. Females generally give birth to one lamb, during late May to mid-June.

Argali have a relatively short lifespan, seldom exceeding 10-12 years. Argali may undertake seasonal

movements and some populations occur across international borders.

The primary threats to argali are poaching and loss and degradation of habitat. Some populations are

stable while others are decreasing. The horns of the males are highly valued as a trophy and argali are a

species with considerable economic potential.

This Single Species Action Plan was developed at a workshop co-organized by GIZ and CMS that took

place in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in December 2012. The draft plan was subsequently further refined by the

world’s leading argali experts during an extensive process of review.

Goal of the Action Plan

To maintain and restore argali populations to favourable conservation status throughout their range.

Objectives

Objective 1: To stabilize argali numbers and range and reverse negative trends.

Objective 2: To maintain and restore intact argali habitat and migration routes.

Objective 3: To fill knowledge and information gaps.

Objective 4: To ensure effective implementation of the action plan


7

1 - Biological Assessment

1.1 Taxonomy

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Artiodactyla

Family: Bovidae

Genus: Ovis

Species: Ovis ammon Linnaeus, 1758

Common names: argali (English), arkhar (Russian), argal’(ugalz – ram; homi - ewe) (Mongolian), 盘羊

pán yáng (Chinese), nyan (Tibetan, Ladakhi), arkar (Kazakh), ak-kiik, kuldja (Tajik)

Argali taxonomy is complex and many subspecies and forms have been described. Among fundamental

arrangements are those by Lydekker (1898) Nasonov (1923) and Tsalkin (1951). Nader et al. (1973) listed

16 subspecies, Pfeffer (1967) four, Valdez (1982) and Geist (1991) six, Schaller (1977) seven, and

Fedosenko (2000) eight.

Nine subspecies were recognized by the IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group (Shackleton and Lovari (1997):

Ovis ammon ammon Altai argali

Ovis ammon collium Kazakhstan argali

Ovis ammon darwini Gobi argali

Ovis ammon hodgsoni Tibetan argali

Ovis ammon jubata North China argali, Shansi argali

Ovis ammon karelini Tian Shan argali

Ovis ammon nigrimontana Karatau argali

Ovis ammon polii Marco Polo sheep, Pamir argali

Ovis ammon severtzovi Severtzov’s argali

The same classification was used by Fedosenko & Blank (2005) and Wilson & Reeder (2005), except that

the latter authors preferred the name O. a. comosa to O. a. jubata. Although this is currently the most

widely used arrangement, argali taxonomy remains unresolved and further genetic studies may indicate

that some argali populations are in fact characterized by clinal variation (Harris and Reading 2008).

Some authorities formerly considered Severtzov’s Sheep of Uzbekistan to be an urial Ovis orientalis but it

is now considered an argali, based on the evidence of chromosomes (Bunch et al. 1998) and mtDNA (Wu

et al. 2003). Groves and Grubb (2011) speculated that severtzovi might be a naturally occurring hybrid

between argali and urial O. orientalis.

In China, some authors have recognized additional subspecies. Wang (2003) recognized O. a. littledalei,

adametzi, and sairensis (all within the range occupied by karelini or collium above), and dalailamae

(within a large part of the range occupied by hodgsoni). The decision to restrict hodgsoni to a small part of

the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau may have been influenced by its listing on the US Endangered Species Act

which would preclude import of trophies (see Harris 2010 for further discussion of this and other aspects

of argali taxonomy in China).


8

Kapitanova et al. (2004) carried out a revision of argali from the former Soviet Union and Mongolia based

on craniometry and evolutionary trends and using specimens from key world museums and found three

clear types: ammon/darwini; nigrimontana/karelini/polii; and severtzovi.

Based on mtDNA analysis, Tserenbataa et al. (2004) questioned the validity of separating O. a. ammon

and darwini within Mongolian populations. Craniometrical analysis of O. a. polii showed a hybrid zone

with karelini (Subbotin et al. 2007).

Groves and Grubb (2011) raised the nine forms to species status, in a revision of all ungulates utilizing the

Phylogenetic Species Concept, but this arrangement has not been adopted by the IUCN Caprinae

Specialist Group.

Subspecies to date have been described on the basis of different characters: the size, shape and direction of

twisting of the horns; differences in cranial proportions; colour of the coat; presence of a ruff, and overall

body size and dimensions. There are few, if any, clear boundaries between named subspecies and

intergrades and transitional forms occur frequently. There has been some further confusion between these

taxonomic arrangements and trophy classifications that use the same names.

A phenotype-based trophy hunting classification is proposed by Damm and Franco (in press). It identifies

15 phenotypes and is intended as complementary to formal taxonomic schemes; it is included here in

Annex 1.

1.2 Distribution

Argali inhabit a vast geographic range across the highlands of Central Asia: the Kazakh Low Hills

(Melkosopochniki) and Nuratau Range, Turkestan and Zeravshan Ranges, Tian Shan, Pamirs, Kun Lun,

Altai, western mountains of the Tuva Republic, and from the northern side of the Himalaya across the

Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and isolated mountains in the Gobi. Argali also occur outside mountains in areas

with hills, canyons, and rocky outcrops.

Argali are found in north-eastern Afghanistan (Wakhan District); China (Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai,

and possibly western Sichuan provinces, and the Tibet and Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Republics);

northern India (Ladakh district in Jammu & Kashmir; the Spiti area of Himachal Pradesh, and Sikkim);

eastern Kazakhstan, southern and eastern Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, the far north of Nepal, northern Pakistan;

the Russian Federation (Altai and Tuva Republics), eastern Uzbekistan, and eastern and southern

Tajikistan (Fedosenko and Blank 2005). Argali have not been recorded in Bhutan although apparently

suitable habitat exists in the north of the country (Wangchuk 2004).

Overall, the range is highly fragmented and few large, connected populations remain. Several populations

occur across international borders and animals may move between countries in the course of seasonal or

altitudinal migrations, dispersal, or in response to winter snow.

O. a. ammon: Occurs in the Altai Mountains and adjoining ranges of Mongolia and the Russian

Federation extending to the sections of the Altai lying within China and Kazakhstan. The current

distribution in Mongolia also includes parts of the Gobi-Altai, Khangai, and Khovsgol ranges, though

large areas in western Mongolia now lack the species (Amgalanbaatar et al. 2002, Harris and Reading

2008). In the Russian Federation, it is found in the Chikhachev, Tsagan-Shibetu and Mongun-Tayga

ranges in the Tuva Republic, Saylyugem Range and Ukok Plateau in Altai Republic (Weinberg et al.


9

1997, Paltsyn 2001, Maroney 2006). In Mongolia, populations also inhabit areas between ranges with

hills, rocky outcrops, and steep terrain (Amgalanbaatar et al. 2002, Harris and Reading 2008).

O. a. collium: Occurs in central-eastern Kazakhstan from the Kazakh Melkosopochniki, south to the

mountains on the northern side of Lake Balkhash and east to the Tarbagatay Range on the border with

China (Weinberg et al. 1997). O. a. collium was not recorded in China by Shackleton (1997) and Wang

(1998) listed the argali on the Chinese side of the border adjacent to the range of O. a collium in

Kazakhstan as O. a. karelini.

O. a. darwini: Distributed in mountains, rolling hills, canyons and rocky outcrops of the Transaltai Gobi,

Gobi desert and Gobi steppe in Mongolia (Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000) and Inner Mongolia in

China (Harris and Reading 2008). In China, populations have become reduced and fragmented according

to Wang and Schaller (1996) and Bu et al. (1998). Harris et al. (2009) reported that since then, argali have

disappeared from at least two more areas (Helan Shan and Lang Shan), and may also have been lost from

the Mazong Shan range (although several were observed there in 2000; G. Damm, in litt,); small numbers

remain in Yabrai (Yubulai) Shan, Hada area and the Erenuo’ersumu region. Very little habitat capable of

sustaining argali populations remains within Inner Mongolia and the future of the species there appears

tenuous (Harris et al. 2009). Details of the distribution of darwini and ammon in southern Mongolia are

unclear and genetic research indicates that all argali in Mongolia represent a single form (Tserenbataa et

al. 2004).

O. a. hodgsoni: Distributed irregularly across the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China, from the northern side

of the Himalaya north to the Kunlun and Qilian Shan ranges, and extending into the extreme north of

India and Nepal (Schaller 1998, Wang 1998, Harris 2008, Harris and Reading, 2008). In India, argali are

restricted to the eastern plateau of Ladakh, the adjacent area of Spiti and separately in northern Sikkim

close to the Chinese border (Fox and Johnsingh 1997, Bhatnagar 2003, Ul-Haq 2003, Namgail et al.

2009). In Nepal, argali are known from the Damodar Kunda area of Mustang District bordering China

(Shrestha et al. 2005) and may persist in the Dolpo region, north of the Dhaulagiri Range (Wegge and Oli

1997).

O. a. jubata: This is the least known form of argali. It formerly occurred in the Chinese provinces of

Hebei, Shanxi and Shaanxi. However, Harris et al. (2009) found no credible reports of argali from south

of the Yellow River within recent historical times and concluded that O. a. jubata was extinct. Harris et al.

(2009) also noted that this form was described from sites that differ substantially in topography and

vegetation from argali range in the Gobi to the north and high elevation mountains to the west and

hypothesize that they may have had unique adaptations to warmer, more mesic conditions than other

argali.

O. a. karelini: Quite widely distributed across the Tian Shan Mountains in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and

China (Fedosenko and Blank 2005, Harris and Reading 2008).

O. a. nigrimontana: Restricted to the Karatau Mountains of Kazakhstan. Its habitat has decreased with the

expansion of agriculture, encroachment by livestock herders and permanent settlements, especially in the

adjacent steppe and piedmont (Delorme 2002). However, it is reported to be increasing in Karatau Strictly

Protected Area (O. Pereladova in litt.).

O. a. polii: Occur in the eastern Pamirs. Most of the range lies in Tajikistan, extending into adjoining parts

of Wakhan (north-eastern Afghanistan), Taxkorgan area of Xinjiang (China), extreme northern Pakistan

(around the Khunjerab, Kilik and Mintaka passes) and south-eastern Kyrgyzstan (Fedosenko and Blank

2005, Harris and Reading 2008, Schaller and Kang 2008). The boundary between polii and karelini in


10

Kyrgyzstan is unclear and a hybrid zone was noted by Subbotin et al. (2007). O. a. polii is known to move

between the four countries where it occurs (Harris et al. 2010).

O. a. severtzovi: Formerly had a wide distribution in Uzbekistan from the north-western Pamiro-Alay

Mountains through to the low mountains and hills of the Kyzylkum Desert. Today, almost all remaining

animals are restricted to the higher mountains of Nuratau, primarily in the Nuratau Strictly Protected Area,

north of Samarkand (Harris and Reading 2008, Aizin 2009). In Kyrgyzstan it occurs in a small part of the

Turkestan Range between the Tonuk Suu (Sokh) and Kara Suu (Isfana) rivers, but was formerly more

widespread (Vorobeev and van der Ven 2003). It is still present in the area, near Batken, close to the

border with Tajikistan (Davletbakov 2012). It is also reported from the Turkestan Range in Tajikistan. O.

a. severtzovi historically inhabited the Beltau Mountains and eastern portions of the Aktau range in

Kazakhstan but is believed to be extirpated from these areas (N. Beshko, pers. comm. in Harris and

Reading 2008).

Figure 1. The distribution of argali (adapted from Fedosenko and Blank 2005). AF – Afghanistan; BH –

Bhutan; CN – China; IN – India; KG – Kyrgyzstan; KZ – Kazakhstan; MN – Mongolia; NE – Nepal; PK

– Pakistan; RU – Russian Federation; TJ – Tajikistan; UZ – Uzbekistan.


11

1.3. Population

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, argali only occur in the Wakhan District of Badakhshan Province. O. a. polii was

historically present in much of the Afghan Pamirs between the Pamir and Wakhan rivers (Petocz et al.

1978). Currently it occupies the western part of the Big Pamir, most of the Little Pamir, and the Wakhjir

Valley (Harris and Winnie 2008, Schaller and Kang 2008). Petocz et al. (1978) counted approximately

1,260 argali in the Afghan Pamirs in the early 1970s and estimated a total population of about 2,500. In

autumn 2004, Schaller and Kang (2008) tallied 624 argali primarily in the Little Pamir and estimated a

population of 1,000. More recently Harris et al. (2010) applied a mark-recapture method using DNA

extracted from feces and estimated the female population size in Big Pamir at 172 (95% confidence limits

117-232) individuals. However, the relatively small size of the preferred habitat in Afghanistan and the

presence of relatively pristine pastures in the far east of Little Pamir, seem to drive transboundary

movements of Marco Polo sheep resulting in marked seasonal fluctuations in estimates of population size,

and making it difficult to assess trends. Community rangers in Tegermansu area counted 586 argali

individuals during March 2012, and according to Kyrgyz inhabitants of the Little Pamir, argali in this area

numbered over 1,000 individuals during late winter 2011-2012, perhaps as a result of an unusually high

seasonal immigration from Tajikistan due to the harsh weather conditions that winter (Rosen 2012).

Trend: Unknown

China

The following account is based on Harris and Reading (2008). Wang et al. (1997) estimated 29,000-

36,000 O. a. hodgsoni in Tibet Autonomous Region, Qinghai, and southeastern Xinjiang (but Wang 1998

considered this was probably a “significant overestimate”), with an additional 2,100-2,800 O. a. darwini

and 600-700 O. a. jubata in Inner Mongolia Province, 8,000-11,000 O. a. karelini in the Tian Shan, 2,000-

3,000 O. a. polii in the Pamirs, and some O. a. ammon in northern Xinjiang near the border with

Mongolia. This would suggest an estimate of 41,700-53,500 argali in China during the early 1990s. In

2004, as part of a nationwide attempt to generate population estimates for wildlife, the total number of

argali in China was estimated to be 23,298–31,910 (Yu Yuqun, Northwest Institute of Endangered

Species, pers. comm. 2004). Both of these estimates however, are likely to be overestimates according to

Harris and Reading (2008).

Argali populations were estimated at 5,000 for the Tibet Autonomous Republic (Liu and Yin 1993) and

3,588 for Qinghai Province (Zheng 2003). Schaller (1998) estimated the total number of Tibetan argali (O.

a. hodgsoni) on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau at 7,000.

In Xinjiang Province, no reliable figures are available for O. a. karelini in the Tian Shan Mountains and

O. a. ammon in the Altai Mountains, although estimates are in the “thousands” for the former and in the

“hundreds” for the latter. In southern Xinjiang, Schaller and Kang (2008) observed 2,299 O. a. polii in the

Taxkorgan Nature Reserve and adjoining areas and suggested that numbers were increasing for the last

two decades due to confiscation of weapons and provision of game guards.

Most populations of argali in the province of Inner Mongolia appear to be small and isolated (Wang and

Schaller 1996, Bu et al. 1998, Wang 1998). Survival of argali in Inner Mongolia is likely to depend on the

ability of dispersing individuals from Mongolia to supplement existing groups or colonize new areas

(Harris et al. 2009).

Surveys by WCS in 2008-2009 found argali sparse on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and local reports of a

decline in numbers, despite a lack of poaching (A. Kang, in litt. 2013).

Trend: Unknown


12

India

In India, Tibetan argali occur in two small and widely separated populations in the states of Jammu &

Kashmir and Sikkim. Argali are rare in northern Sikkim (Sharma and Lachungpa 2003) and occur in two

subgroups along the border between Sikkim and China (Tibet Autonomous Region), with an estimated

177 animals (Chanchani et al. 2010). Namgail et al. (2009) estimated 300–360 O. a. hodgsoni in Ladakh.

Singh (2008) estimated 480–620 individuals in eight widely spaced locations in Ladakh. Argali only

occasionally move into the Spiti area from adjacent Ladakh (Pandey 2003).

Trend: Unknown

Kazakhstan

Population estimates of the recognized subspecies of argali in Kazakhstan based on aerial surveys in

spring 2010 were: c.180 O. a. nigrimontana (before lambing), approximately 1,360 O. a. karelini, and

12,600 O. a. collium, and only about 15 argali (O. a. ammon. There is an overall growth of the population

of O. a. collium and its distribution range is expanding (A. Berber, personal comm., 2011); but surveys

conducted by Safari Club International/Safari Club International Foundation in 2002 showed significantly

different figures; in the majority of the surveyed range (1,544 km2) only 449 argali were directly counted

and the largest group consisted of 17 animals (A. Subbotin, in litt.). In the western parts of the Kazakhstan

plateau (Ulytau Mountains) the argali population was extirpated in the 1950s-1960s and will most

probably not recover without external intervention (Berber 2007). The current distribution area of argali in

Kazakhstan’s highlands is more than 140,000 km².

Trend: Declining?

Kyrgyzstan

Large-scale surveys in key argali habitats were carried out in December 2010 and May 2011. These tallied

a total of 15,311 O. a. karelini and O. a. polii in the Issykkul, Naryn and Talas regions and 37 O. a.

severtzovi in Batken (Davletbakov 2012).

Trend: Stable

Mongolia

Argali appear to be expanding their distribution in eastern Mongolia, but contracting and becoming more

fragmented in western Mongolia (Mallon et al. 1997, Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000, Amgalanbaatar

et al. 2002). The most recent nationwide and local data were produced by a survey conducted in autumn

2009. Field teams sampled a total of 134 argali distribution units within Mongolia, which are estimated to

occupy approximately 46,603 km² of the total area of 60,237 km² that been previously mapped as

occupied by argali. They observed 385 groups of argali, totaling 3,373 individuals and estimated the argali

population at 19,701 (95% confidence limits 9,193–43,135). However, post-survey concerns about

sampling in some aimags (provinces) and estimates derived previously allowed adjustments that resulted

in the best single estimate for Mongolia being 17,903 argali. Direct comparisons are difficult because the

previous survey report lacked details of the areas visited, field methods, and analysis. Apparent increases

or decreases in each aimag may be real, or may have been caused by differences in methods (Harris et al.

2010).

Trend: Declining in western Mongolia; increasing elsewhere

Nepal

Tibetan argali (O. a. hodgsoni) have been reported to occur in the past in several sites of northern Nepal

where they are apparently absent today (Schaller 1998). The only extant population in Nepal occurs in the

north-east Mustang region, where 77 individuals have been reported from the Damodarkund area (Chetri

and Pokharel 2005, Jnawali et al. 2011). No overall estimate of argali population size in Nepal exists but

numbers are likely to be very small (Shrestha et al. 2005).

Trend: Unknown


13

Pakistan

The number of O. a. polii remains unknown, but is possibly less than 100 (Hess et al. 1997). Argali once

occurred in the hundreds, but declined sharply because of poaching during the construction of the

Karakoram Highway in the late 1960s-early 1970s; the current population was estimated at fewer than

150, most or all being seasonal visitors from China (Schaller and Kang 2008).

Trend: Declining

Russian Federation

Surveys of O. a. ammon were conducted in the Altai Republic and in the Tuva Republic in 2010. In the

Saylyugem Range, 448 argali were counted. The overall population in Altai Republic was estimated at

550–600 animals and in total about 700 argali were recorded in the Russian Federation: Tsagan-Shibetu

Range and Mongun-Tayga in Tuva Republic, and Chikhachev Range, Saylyugem Range and Ukok

Plateau in Altai Republic (A. Subbotin, in litt.). The argali population is at least partly transboundary with

Mongolia (WWF 2011).

Trend: Stable, but low numbers

Tajikistan

Sapozhnikov (1976) estimated the total population of O. a. polii in the Eastern Pamirs during the 1960s at

around 70,000 animals. A population estimate of 10,800–12,000 argali was based on extrapolation from

5,773 animals recorded in a 16,847 km² survey area in May 2002 (Ministry for Nature Protection,

Republic of Tajikistan, Tajik National Park 2002, cited in Michel and Muratov 2010). In 2003, in the

Eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan, Schaller and Kang (2008) tallied 1,528 argali within selected census blocks

totalling 1,977 km² and in winter 2005 counted 2,200 animals within their South Alichur block in the

Murgab hunting concession. A survey of accessible sites in 8,170 km² in the Eastern Pamirs was

conducted in December 2009. In total 23,711 Ovis ammon polii in 510 herds were recorded and maximum

herd size was 1,100. Densities varied locally up to 80 per km² but the average density was 2.9 per km².

Distribution was very uneven with some large aggregations of argali contrasting with vast empty areas of

suitable habitat (Michel and Muratov 2010). In Tajik National Park more than 5,000 argali occur during

all seasons (Michel and Muratov 2010). About 1,500 argali were recorded in Zorkul Strictly Protected

Area in summer 2011 (Diment et al., 2012). Severtzov’s argali numbers around a few dozen animals along

the borders with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (Sharufiddinov, Rahimov, pers. comm. to S. Michel 2008;

Rahimov and Amirov 2011). In the eastern Pamirs, a 140-km corridor of unobstructed rangeland extends

from the Afghan China border north to the Rangkul Pamir (R. Valdez, in litt. 2014).

Trend: Increasing or stable overall, decreasing locally

Uzbekistan

In the second edition of the Uzbek Red Data Book, O. a. severtzovi were estimated to number around

2,500 (Azimov 2009), of which 1,800–1,900 were in Nuratau Strictly Protected Area. However

assessments conducted in 2005/2006 suggest that argali estimates for the Nuratau Strictly Protected Area

were unreliable and presented significant overestimates (CMS Argali Listing Proposal 2011, cited in

Rosen 2012). About 1,200–1,300 argali survive in Nuratau Strictly Protected Area and about 250–300

outside, in the Nuratau Mountains, of which ~150–200 occur in western Nuratau and 100 in eastern

Nuratau and the Koitash Range; fewer than 100 argali remain in the Tamdytau and Aktau Ranges and a

few individuals may persist in the Malguzar Range near the Zaamin SPA. Therefore, fewer than 1,800

Severtzov’s argali are believed to persist in Uzbekistan, of which 90% occur in the Nuratau Range (N.

Beshko, pers. comm. in Harris and Reading 2008).

Trend: Declining


14

1.4. Habitat

Argali live in mountains from 300 to 5,750 m above sea level. They inhabit hills, mountains, areas with

rocky outcrops, canyons and plateaus, and prefer open or moderately broken terrain, though females use

more precipitous areas only during lambing and for 2–3 weeks thereafter. Argali are rarely found on

extensive plains and usually avoid forested slopes, except in Nuratau and the Turkestan Range, and in

places where poaching and livestock force them to seek refuge in atypical habitat. Argali prefer areas with

well-drained soil with little or no snow, or areas with winds that blow snow off the slopes and plateaus;

many populations use lower elevations in winter (Heptner et al. 1961, Schaller 1977, Fedosenko and

Blank 2005).

1.5. Biology and ecology

The diet of argali consists mainly of grasses, sedges, forbs and small shrubs, the proportions of each

varying according to elevation, site and season. At lower elevations, such as in Central Kazakhstan,

leaves, flowers, and fruit from bushes and trees are significant dietary components. In Mongolia argali

favour grasses/shrubs in winter and spring, and forbs/sedges in summer and fall (Wingard et al. 2011).

Salt licks are particularly attractive to argali (Fedosenko and Blank 2005).

Argali are usually gregarious, living in groups of 2–150 individuals, with much larger aggregations

forming at times during the winter rut (Heptner et al. 1961, Schaller, 1977, Singh et al. 2010a, 2010b).

Size and composition of argali herds change with season. Some argali populations segregate by sexes

during most of the year, except during the rut. Males tend to use steeper areas at higher elevations than

females (Heptner et al. 1961, Schaller 1977, Fedosenko and Blank 2005).

Argali are partially sympatric with Siberian ibex Capra sibirica and blue sheep Pseudois nayaur in places

but usually show habitat segregation (Schaller, 1977). On the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau argali diet overlaps

significantly with males of chiru Pantholops hodgsoni, wild yak Bos mutus, blue sheep, and white-lipped

deer Przewalskium albirostris. Argali may compete with Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata and kiang

Equus kiang for forage resources (Harris and Miller 1995). The grey wolf Canis lupus is the main predator

of argali; snow leopards Panthera uncia also prey on them in some places.

2 - THREATS

Argali are threatened by poaching and overexploitation; habitat loss and degradation due to grazing

competition with domestic livestock, fuel wood collection, and mining; disease transmission, predation by

domestic dogs and climate change (Amgalanbaatar et al. 2002, Fedosenko and Blank 2005, Namgail et al.

2007, Harris and Reading 2008, Schaller and Kang 2008, Young et al. 2011).

Threats can act directly (causing mortality, stress) or indirectly. This section gives an overview of the

main threats. To describe the importance of each threat, the following categories are used:

Critical: a factor causing or likely to cause very rapid declines and/or extinction;

High: a factor causing or likely to cause rapid declines;

Medium: a factor causing or likely to cause moderately rapid declines;

Low: a factor causing or likely to cause low or negligible declines;

Local: a factor causing or likely to cause declines in small parts of the range;

Unknown: a factor that is likely to affect the species to an unknown extent.


15

2.1. Poaching and Overexploitation

Poaching for meat or horns is the major threat to many argali populations. Although argali receive legal

protection in all range states, enforcement is often weak and ineffective. Protected area staff and hunting

inspectors are generally under-resourced and under-funded. In many cases they lack the necessary means

of transport to conduct patrols as well as basic equipment. In China, poaching had been considered to be a

substantial threat (Wang et al. 1997 Schaller 1998), but in the mid-1990s a government programme to

confiscate guns from pastoralists substantially reduced the weapons available for poaching. This, together

with continued efforts to publicize national laws on protected species, appears to have reduced poaching

overall in western China during the last decade. Following independence from the Soviet Union and

economic hardships, border guards provided with poor rations have sharply reduced argali populations in

some of these areas (Rosen 2012) and local militia and customs officials killed dozens of argali (Harris

and Reading 2008). In Kazakhstan, there is some information about illegal trophy hunts for argali using

permits for hunting for scientific purposes (Vaisman et al. in prep.). The actual extent of poaching is

difficult to assess, but known cases in Kazakhstan may amount to only 1% of the actual number (M.

Levitin, in litt. to D. Mallon, 2013). In range states where trophy hunting is allowed, inadequate controls

may mean that the number of animals shot does not coincide with the number of hunting licenses issued.

Trophies may be exchanged against larger ones or are illegally exported (Vaisman et al. in prep.).

When there is insufficient government control, pricing and allocation of permits and concession areas may

be influenced by corruption. Unsustainable use tends to occur where incentives for sustainable use and

conservation of the resource are absent. Both illegal and legal trophy hunting, if not accompanied by

measures ensuring the support of local people, can increase poaching pressure. Selective over-harvesting

for horns of the largest, most mature males alters the age and sex structure of populations, disrupts

breeding, depresses the age of mean male breeding and so can reduce reproductive fitness.

Importance: Critical

2.2. Overgrazing and competition with livestock

Across argali range, overgrazing is causing degradation and is thus considered the key factor of habitat

destruction. Total livestock numbers in most argali range states have increased during recent years to a

level causing significant habitat degradation and disturbance. Occupation of pastures by herders forces

argali to use sub-optimal habitats, e.g. summer pastures in winter (where forage availability and fleeing

from wolves is hindered by snow) and winter pastures in summer (Kashkarov et al. 2008). Overgrazing

and competition with livestock have been identified as a major threat to wild ungulates in the Indian

Transhimalaya, with significant increases in livestock populations apparent in both Ladakh and Sikkim in

recent decades (Namgail, 2004, Namgail et al. 2007) and in Mongolia (Amgalanbaatar et al. 2006).

Grazing pressure is high in the argali habitats in the Big and Little Pamirs in Afghanistan, but low or

absent in the Wakhjir valley. In China, efforts to settle pastoralists have led to intensified use of

productive grasslands preferred by argali, thus displacing them (Harris 2008). Intense summer and year-

round grazing in some valleys limits access to high quality pastures in summer, leading to reduced forage

and habitat available for argali during winter (Harris 2008). Argali shift to more marginal areas (steeper,

less productive sites) when livestock (sheep and goats) move into their habitat. (Harris 2008). In

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan following independence in the early 1990s, livestock numbers dropped and

migration to summer pastures declined, leading to improved habitat conditions for argali. With the

recovery of the livestock numbers and reclamation of temporarily abandoned pastures since around 2005,

habitat degradation caused by livestock has become more critical. In the eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan, the

shrub Krascheninnikovia ceratoides (teresken) is dug out for fuel by local people, causing a shortage of

winter forage (Breckle and Wucherer 2006). Livestock herders are often accompanied by guard dogs,

which chase argali, further increasing stress and sometimes killing argali lambs and adults (Singh 2008,

Young et al. 2011). Competition with livestock is caused in part by lack of environmentally-friendly land


16

use planning and poor or non-existent regulations for the use of argali habitat by livestock and other land

use types.

Importance: Critical

2.3. Disturbance

In many areas, argali routinely avoid areas occupied by livestock and people. This may force them to

forage in suboptimal areas and increase their energy requirements making them more vulnerable to harsh

weather conditions, predators, and diseases, hence decreasing their productivity. In Ladakh, India,

Namgail et al. (2007) documented a group of argali moving away from preferred foraging areas when

livestock were present. In Afghanistan Marco Polo Sheep avoid the vicinity of tended herds of sheep and

goats but are more tolerant and even sometimes mix with free-ranging herds of domestic yak (Ostrowski

et al. 2009). Observations from sites in Kyrgyzstan Mongolia and Tajikistan, however suggest that where

poaching is controlled, argali may be more tolerant to livestock. In Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia,

argali became habituated to people and livestock when they were not harassed (R. Reading in litt.).

Mining sites and recreational infrastructure provide further sources of disturbance, though at present these

have a relatively limited presence in argali range. Interestingly, local sources report that, due to effective

protection from poaching, undestroyed habitats inside the broader mining area at one site in Kyrgyzstan

are utilized by argali and the animals no longer react to the noise of heavy machinery (A. Davletbakov,

pers. comm. 2010, A.P. Vereshchagin, pers. comm. 2012).

Importance: High

2.4. Mining and infrastructure development

Mining and other forms of resource extraction are increasing within parts of argali range. Large-scale

mining developments are under way in Mongolia and gold is mined in the Tian Shan in Kyrgyzstan. There

is a uranium mine in the northern part of Karatau in Kazakhstan (Delorme 2002). Hydroelectric

installations and tourism development are also increasing, especially in high mountain areas. A second

issue is that the road construction associated with large scale infrastructure developments can open up new

areas to poachers if adequate controls are not put in place. Habitat destruction can be extremely severe at

mine sites themselves, but these sites often occupy a limited area and currently only a very small

proportion of the current global range of argali is affected, though this could expand rapidly.

Importance: Local

2.5. Fences and linear barriers

International border fences present a barrier to movement and dispersal of argali, prevent access to

optimal grazing sites (especially in winter), and increase fragmentation and genetic isolation. Some fences

erected between the former Soviet Union and China have deteriorated and in several places argali can now

move across the border. For example, an inner border fence (>2m high) between Tajikistan and China

runs for 350 km; however along the southern 50 km, fence posts have been cut for firewood so argali can

cross (Schaller and Kang 2008) and it may not form a complete barrier. Border fences also exist along

parts of the Afghanistan-Tajikistan border, the Uzbekistan-Tajikistan border; India and China (Singh

2008), Mongolia and Russia (Kashkarov et al. 2008) and China and Mongolia, though in the latter case

argali were able to cross the fence (Harris et al. 2009). The barbed wire border fence between the Russian

Federation and Mongolia, built in the year 2000, produces severe negative effects. The fence runs for

about 50 km along the Ak-Adyr Ridge and Mongun-Taiga and hinders seasonal migration, effectively

excluding argali from critical wintering habitat; deaths from argali becoming entangled in the barbed wire

have also been reported (Damm and Franco in press). Roads and railways, particularly when fenced, can

also restrict or prevent movement of wild animals, but so far not have not been reported as impacting

negatively on argali populations, except for the Karakoram Highway in Pakistan (Schaller and Kang

2008). Secure, well-maintained, high fences can present an impassable barrier to argali with especially

serious effects when this disrupts movements to seasonal pastures. Currently, such fences have been


17

constructed in only a small part of argali range so the threat remains localised, though it could increase in

extent and impact in the near to medium future.

Importance: Local

2.6. Disease transmission Several livestock-introduced diseases, such as pasteurellosis, rinderpest, malignant anthrax, and others,

reportedly infect argali (Sapozhnikov 1976, Fedosenko and Blank 2005). However, recent evidence of

infectious agents impacting significantly the survival of argali population are lacking, perhaps as a result

of decreasing numbers of argali, the difficulty of detection, and low diagnostic capabilities of animal

health services across argali range. Nevertheless, in the generalized context of increasing encroachment of

livestock into wild habitats, argali as well as other mountain ungulates are at risk of future outbreaks of

livestock-borne diseases (Ostrowski et al. 2009). Climate change is expected to exert significant

modifications on Central Asian ecosystems and may also increase the risk of emergence of vector-

disseminated diseases to argali (Harvell et al. 2002). All these require continuous and informed disease

surveillance in domestic animals that are in contact with argali populations.

Importance: Medium

2.7. Fragmentation

All the preceding threats, acting singly or in combination contribute to fragmentation of argali into smaller

and more isolated subpopulations. Small populations are inherently more vulnerable to extinction from

stochastic events and generally contain reduced levels of genetic diversity, while greater distances

between them reduce inter-connectivity and the exchange of individuals. Isolated protected areas and the

absence of migration corridors between them and hunting concessions aggravate this factor.

Fragmentation has been reported as a negative factor affecting argali in the Altai in the Russian Federation

and Kazakhstan (Kashkarov et al. 2008), in Inner Mongolia, China (Harris et al. 2009), and in India

(Singh 2008). In the Aktau, Tamdytau, and Malguzar Mountains as well as the Turkestan Range

(Uzbekistan and border areas of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) very small, isolated populations of

Severtzov’s argali are threatened by losses due to poaching and predation, inbreeding and harsh climatic

conditions (Beshko, pers. comm. 2012). Marco Polo sheep in the Afghan Pamir do not show reduced

genetic diversity, due to migration of animals to and from Tajikistan, However, the subpopulation of

argali in Taxkorgan, China is potentially becoming genetically isolated (Luikart et al. 2011).

Importance: High

2.8. Lack of transboundary cooperation

Given that so many argali populations have a transboundary character, full cooperation between the

relevant range states is essential. Without coordinated monitoring of transboundary populations and

sharing of relevant information, it is difficult to make accurate assessments of the trends of these

populations and implement appropriate management decisions. The successful recovery and/or

maintenance of populations will depend on the activities of all those range states which share a

population.

Importance: Medium

2.9. Knowledge limitations

The taxonomy, genetics and possible phylogeographic structure of argali are not settled, complicating the

identification of important conservation units. Data on distribution, population size and structure, are often

outdated or unreliable. Research and population monitoring are expensive and generating robust estimates

of population size and monitoring trends are problematic. Singh and Milner-Gulland (2011) reviewed the

range of monitoring methodologies for ungulates in Central Asia and suggested a stratified random

sampling approach using habitat suitability models to census and monitor argali populations. Such an

approach is readily transferrable to different areas where argali occur (Singh et al. 2009). Research


18

information is rarely translated into practical management recommendations and even more rarely are

these recommendations applied in practice. Hunting results are rarely documented in detail and data on

trophy hunts (success rate, number harvested, age, horn size) are rarely available for scientific monitoring.

Decisions on the conservation, management and use of argali are often driven by political and commercial

interests rather than based on wildlife management principles. The impacts of disease and climate change

are currently unknown. Poor management of hunting operations and detrimental off take quotas may also

be the result of poor knowledge of population size and structure.

Importance: Medium

2.10. Climate Change

Changes in global climate patterns include rising in mean temperatures and changes in the level of

precipitation (IPCC ARA4 2007) while in mountain regions, the frequency of severe weather events is

also predicted to increase (ICIMOD 2009). Potential effects on argali habitat of warmer temperatures and

increased precipitation include melting permafrost, longer growing seasons and upward shifts in

vegetation zones. Such changes would also affect human land use and patterns of livestock grazing, with

potential indirect impacts on argali. The specific effects of climate change on different parts of argali

distribution are currently unknown, so including this factor in monitoring programmes and planning for a

range of future scenarios are important. Amending protected area boundaries in response to regional

climate changes will be problematic, further underlining the importance of large-scale, landscape level

approaches to maintain connectivity between subpopulations.

Importance: Unknown

3 - CONSERVATION MEASURES

3.1. International status

Argali receive some legal protection under two Multilateral Environmental Agreements (CITES, CMS)

and trade regulations in the EU and USA (summarized in Table 3) and they are included on the IUCN Red

List.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) –

listed in Appendix II except for O. a. hodgsoni and O. a. nigrimontana which are included in

Appendix I (Severtzov’s argali is listed in Appendix II as O. vignei severtzovi).

Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) – listed in

Appendix II. (Resolution Conf. 12.11 (Rev. CoP16) on Standard nomenclature provides that for

Ovis ammon, the taxonomic standard reference is: Wilson & Reeder 2005).

European Union (EU): Annex B of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations, except for O. a. hodgsoni

and O. a. nigrimontana, which are included in Annex A (EC Reg. No 709/2010, amending EC

Reg. No. 338/97). For the importation of argali or its parts into the EU, an export permit or re-

export certificate, issued by country of (re-) export, as well as an import permit issued by the EU

Member State of destination are required

The United States of America Endangered Species Act (ESA): “Endangered”, except in Mongolia,

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where the species is listed as “threatened” (a classification that allows

for import of trophies from legally taken argali in those countries under limited and specifically

authorized permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

IUCN Red List: Near Threatened (because argali are declining overall and close to qualifying for

‘Vulnerable’ under criterion A2cd; Harris and Reading 2008).


19

Table 3. International conservation and legal status of argali Ovis ammon

IUCN Global

Status

CMS CITES

EC wildlife trade

regulations

The United States

Endangered

Species Act

Near Threatened Appendix II

Appendix II

Except:

O. a. hodgsoni and

O. a. nigrimontana:

Appendix I

Appendix B

Except:

O. a. hodgsoni and

O. a. nigrimontana:

Appendix A

Endangered

Except: Threatened

in Mongolia,

Kyrgyzstan,

Tajikistan:

3.2 National policy and legislation in range states

Afghanistan: Fully protected; hunting and trading are strictly prohibited (Presidential hunting ban since

2006);

China: All argali are classified as a Category II “key species” under the Chinese National Wildlife

Protection Law of 1988. Permits to take argali must be obtained from provincial authorities. Only trophy

hunting programmes have procured permits to hunt argali under this legislation, but no trophy hunting of

argali is currently authorized;

India: Listed as ‘endangered’ under Schedule I (highest protection) of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972)

of the Government of India;

Kazakhstan: Listed in the national Red List as O. a. ammon - endangered (Category I); O. a. collium -

rare (Category III); O. a. karelini- vulnerable (Category II); O. a. nigrimontana - endangered (Category I);

O. a. severtzovi - endangered (Category I) and possibly disappeared from the country. Hunting permits are

issued only by particular governmental decree following a special procedure, but there have been no legal

hunts since 2003;

Kyrgyzstan: Listed in the Red Book as O. a. polii – near threatened (Category 3); O. a. karelini -

vulnerable (Category 2); and O. a. severtzovi – endangered (Category 1) (2007); the government issues

about 70 permits annually for trophy hunting and scientific purposes;

Mongolia: Listed as “Endangered” after the 2009 nationwide assessment, protected as “Rare” under the

2001 revision (Mongolian Government Act No. 264) of the 2000 Mongolian Law on Animals. General

hunting (i.e. by local people) of argali has been prohibited since 1953, although foreign trophy hunters can

purchase special licenses under an annual quota;

Nepal: Vulnerable, protected under HMG Nepal’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973;

Pakistan: Critically endangered, protected at provincial level, no hunting permits are issued;

Russian Federation: Listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, hunting prohibited;

Tajikistan: Listed in the Red Book, hunting is in theory possible only for scientific purposes but in

practice the government annually issues about 80 permits for trophy hunting;

Uzbekistan: Listed in the Red Book, limited trophy hunting irregularly permitted, export permits issued.


20

3.3. Protected Areas

Protected areas (PAs) have been established within argali range in each of the range States, some of them

of substantial size. However, some PAs exist only on paper, and many suffer from lack of funding, staff,

training, equipment, and transport. Although each site in theory has a management plan that sets out

priority activities, these plans are not always up to date or fully implemented. In many protected areas

livestock grazing and harvest of wild plants, as well as poaching take place. The area figures given below

refer to the whole PA and not the amount of suitable argali habitat, which may be much smaller.

Afghanistan: Two Wildlife Reserves have been proposed, Big Pamir (576 km2) and Teggermansu (248

km2) but in April 2014 the Government of Afghanistan declared the whole of Wakhan as a National Park

(>10,000 km2).

China: A vast reserve complex totalling over 586,500km2 in area is located on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,

made up of four contiguous protected areas: Chang Tang Nature Reserve (300,000 km2), Sanjiangyuan

NR (158,000 km2), Kekexili NR (83,500 km

2) and Arjin Shan NR (45,000 km

2). To these can be added

Qilian Shan NR (>20,000 km2) and Qomolongma NR (33,910 km

2) on the northern and southern edges of

the plateau respectively. Argali occur sporadically in all of these sites. In Xinjiang, Taxkorgan NR (14,000

km2), West Tian Shan National Nature Reserve (280 km

2) and Tomur Feng NR (100 km

2) on the southern

side of the Tian Shan also host the species.

India: Occur in a small area within Hemis National Park (3,350 km2), Ladakh, and Khangchendzonga NP

(849 km2), Sikkim.

Kazakhstan: Argali occur in Karatau State Nature Reserve (343 km2), Aksu-Zhabagly State Nature

Reserve (1320 km2), Andasay State Nature Sanctuary (10,000 km

2), Zhusandala State Nature Reserved

Zone (27,575 km2 ), Ile-Alatau State National Nature Park (1,997 km

2), Almaty State Nature Reserve (915

km2), Almaty State Nature Sanctuary (5,424 km

2), Kolsay Kolderi State National Nature Park (1,610

km2), Altyn-Emel State National Nature Park (1,611 km

2), Zhongar-Alatau State National Nature Park

(3560 km2), Upper Koksy State Nature Sanctuary (2,400 km

2), Tokhty State Nature Sanctuary (1,870

km2), Katon-Karagay State National Nature Park (6,434 km

2), Bayan-Aul State National Nature Park (507

km2), Karkaraly State National Nature Park (903 km

2), Kyzyltau State Nature Sanctuary (600 km

2),

Buyratau State National Nature Park (889 km2), Kyzylaray State Nature Sanctuary (182 km

2), Tarbagatay

State Nature Sanctuary (2,400 km2).

Kyrgyzstan: Argali occur in Karatal-Japyryk State Nature Reserve (364 km2), Kulun-Ata State Nature

Reserve (274 km2), Naryn State Reserve 370 km

2), and Sarychat-Ertash State Nature Reserve (720 km

2);

and Besh-Tash, Chon Kemin, Kara-Bura (114 km2) State Nature Parks; also formerly in Besh-Aral State

Reserve (867 km2).

Mongolia: At least 14 federally protected areas harbour argali including: Great Gobi Strictly Protected

Area (SPA) Unit A (44,190 km2); Khokh Serkh SPA (723 km

2); Otgontenger SPA (955 km

2); Turgen Uul

SPA; Tsagaan Shuvuut unit of Uvs Nuur SPA (7,125 km2); Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Conservation

Park (NCP) (27,000 km2); Altai Tavaan Bogd NCP (6,362 km

2); Silkhemin Nuruu NCP (140 km

2); Khar

Uvs Nuur NCP; Khangain Nuruu NCP (8,978 Tsagaan Shuvuut; Khustain Nuruu NCP (506 km2); Ikh

Nart Nature Reserve (NR) (666 km2); Burkhan Buudai NR; and Eej Kharkhuun National Monument (225

km2). About 23% of the argali’s range falls within federal protected areas. The species also occurs in

dozens of locally protected areas.

Pakistan: Occur in a small area within Khunjerab National Park (2,270 km2).


21

Russian Federation: Confirmed in Altaiskiy State NR (864 km2) and Sailyugemskiy National Park.

Tajikistan: Tajik National Park – declared a World Heritage Site in 2013 (26,000 km2) and Zorkul Strict

Nature Reserve (877 km2) in the south-east Pamirs.

Uzbekistan: Nuratau State Nature Reserve (170 km²) within the Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve,

formerly in Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve (573 km2), and possibly in Zaamin State Nature Reserve

(156 km2).

3.4. Transboundary initiatives

Many argali populations occur across international borders and animals may move between different

countries, emphasizing the need for transboundary cooperation in monitoring and management.

Transboundary cooperation enables conservation at larger spatial scales, which safeguards dispersal

corridors between core populations. Transboundary initiatives can operate at several different levels,

including regional and bilateral agreements, ecosystem-level projects, and cooperation and information-

sharing among protected area staff, NGOs and field researchers. The following are examples of such

initiatives:

Several recent current and proposed transboundary initiatives within the argali range are focused on

protected areas.

The UNDP‐GEF Project “Biodiversity Conservation in Altai‐Sayan Eco-region” ran from 2007 to 2011 in

collaboration with WWF, with argali as a flagship species. The governments of the Russian Federation

and Mongolia and Russian Federation and Kazakhstan have signed agreements to establish an Altai

transboundary Nature Reserve. In 2010, a workshop was held at Ust Koksa in the Altai Republic of the

Russian Federation to discuss the establishment of a Mega Connectivity Corridor along the Altai

Mountains that would connect several protected areas in China, Kazakhstan, Mongolia (Rosen 2012).

A Pamir International Peace Park has been proposed where the borders of Afghanistan, China, Pakistan

and Tajikistan meet in the eastern Pamirs (Schaller 1986, WCS, 2007, 2012), with Marco Polo sheep as a

flagship species. The proposed reserve would encompass eight existing protected areas. The most

significant of these are Zorkul SNR (870 km2) in Tajikistan; Pamir-i Buzurg (Big Pamir) NR (679 km

2) in

Afghanistan; Taxkorgan NR (15,863 km2) in China and Khunjerab NR (2,270 km

2) in Pakistan.

The GEF “Trans boundary biodiversity conservation of West Tien Shan Project” aimed to increase

cooperation between four PAs: Chatkal State Reserve (Uzbekistan), Sary-Chelek and Besh-Aral State

Reserves (Kyrgyzstan) and Aksu-Zhabagly (Kazakhstan). The “Tien Shan Ecosystem Development

Project”, also funded by GEF, was launched in 2009 to support management of protected areas and

sustainable development in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The “Pamir-Alai Trans boundary Conservation

Area” (PATCA) project, funded by the EU, included consideration of argali conservation needs (Saidov

2007) but the management plan drawn up has not yet been endorsed or implemented (Rosen, 2012).

The “Mountains of Northern Tien Shan” project will run for the period 2013-2016 with the German

Society for Nature Conservation (NABU). It is planned to organize a transboundary protected area

encompassing three existing PAs: Chon-Kemin National Park (Kyrgyz Republic), Chu-Or NP and Almaty

Strict Reserve (Republic of Kazakhstan). UNDP and the Kyrgyz State Agency on Environmental

Protection and Forestry have initiated a project to strengthen conservation in the Central and Inner Tian

Shan. One of the project aims is to establish the Khan Tengri Natural Park (1870 km2) in eastern

Kyrgyzstan that will border China (documentation on its establishment was prepared in the framework of


22

WWF project). Once established, this could potentially link Sarychat-Ertash Reserve in the Inner Tian

Shan of Kyrgyzstan with Tomur Reserve in Xinjiang, China.

Other transboundary projects operating at a smaller scale within the argali range are summarised in Rosen

(2012) and include WCS’s Ecosystem Health Initiative between Tajikistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan,

aimed at resolving animal health issues at wildlife-livestock interface and an initiative facilitated by

ICIMOD on the conservation of wildlife in the Pakistan-China border area that led to an agreement being

signed between Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Regional Forestry Department and the Gilgit-Baltistan

Forest, Wildlife Parks and Environment Department, Pakistan.

3.5. Trophy Hunting

The horns of adult male argali are highly valued by trophy hunters and trophy hunting generates

significant revenues that could contribute to the conservation of the species and improve local livelihoods.

Trophy hunting also provides a viable alternative land-use in areas where agriculture and livestock

production are marginal. Furthermore, well-run trophy hunting concessions can provide effective

protection to argali populations and other species over extensive areas through effective anti-poaching

measures and controls on livestock grazing. Research at one site in Tajikistan has shown that a well-

managed hunting concession area had a much higher argali population density and abundance than

neighbouring areas (Panthera, unpublished reports 2014, R. Valdez in litt. 2014).

Trophy hunting of argali takes place in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan, very irregularly in

Uzbekistan, and formerly took place in Afghanistan (during the 1970s), China, and Kazakhstan (until

2003). Quotas are set annually and permits issued by the respective governments. An analysis of CITES

trade figures showed that 1,168 argali trophies were exported from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan during

2000-2010 (Vaisman et al. in prep). It appears that little revenue from trophy hunting operations is

currently reinvested in conservation. For example, very little money from trophy hunting has in the past

supported conservation activities in Mongolia (Amgalanbaatar et al. 2002).

Argali trophy hunting operates principally as commercial operations, though this does not preclude some

of them from contributing to biodiversity conservation, and the most effectively managed concessions

engage in anti-poaching activities, patrolling and monitoring. Some benefits may reach local communities

through payment for goods and services but there are few data available to assess the level of these

benefits. Community-based trophy hunting programmes have been developed in two provinces of

Mongolia and the NGO Panthera is supporting development of the “Irbis” and “Burgut” conservancies in

the Madiyan/Pshart and Alichur valleys in Tajikistan to promote sustainable hunting of argali.

Guidelines and codes of conduct have been produced to guide the sustainability of trophy hunting, to

maximise its contribution to biodiversity conservation and to ensure the engagement of local communities.

These include the IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation

Incentives (IUCN 2012) and The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC)’s Best

Practice Guidelines for trophy hunting (Baldus et al. 2008).

Key problems for the sustainability of trophy hunting schemes include legal frameworks that lack clear

regulations and often provide contradicting legal and regulatory mechanisms for the allocation of hunting

areas, inadequate non-detriment findings to determine sustainable levels of export, as called for by CITES,

inappropriate setting and distribution of quotas, and lack of transparent use and allocation of the proceeds

from the sale of the hunting permits, particularly towards local communities (Rosen 2012). Lack of

political will, legal barriers and lack of organizational capacity of the communities hinder the development

of community-based trophy hunting schemes. In other instances, there is a short-term assignment of


23

hunting areas which does not provide any motivation to invest in the long-term conservation of argali.

Quotas and licenses may be exceeded unofficially, especially where regulation is hampered by remote and

difficult terrain and under-resourcing of state inspection services. The same factors of under-resourcing,

weak law enforcement and corruption, affecting the effectiveness of protected areas also impact trophy

hunting through inadequate control of poaching, undermining the quota system and eventually threatening

the viability of the resource (Mallon 2013).

3.6. Conservation initiatives

Under successive cooperative agreements with USAID, WCS implemented a Biodiversity Conservation

Program between 2006 and 2009 in Wakhan District and a project on Improving Livelihoods and

Governance through Natural Resource Management. Activities aimed at improving the conservation of

Marco Polo sheep included: estimating population size, evaluating habitat use for future habitat

modelling, investigating genetic diversity and occurrence of gene flow within Afghan populations and

between Afghan populations and those in neighbouring range states, evaluating the extent of dietary

overlap and range-use conflicts with livestock, evaluating the risk of disease transmission between

livestock and Marco Polo sheep, implementing livestock vaccination programs to decrease the risk of

foot-an-mouth disease transmission to argali, developing extensive public outreach, public awareness and

environmental education programs, building the technical and law enforcement capacity of a community

based ranger force aimed at monitoring population trends and controlling illegal hunting and violations of

wildlife regulations, and promoting the creation of protected areas involving local community

management and income generation through sustainable use of natural resources (Rosen, 2012, Ostrowski,

pers. comm. 2013). However, local people and hunting concession staff regularly report poaching by

Afghans, both in the Afghan sector of the Pamirs and occasionally in Tajikistan. (Bekmurodi pers. comm.

2008 – 2013)

In 2001, Safari Club International Foundation in collaboration with the Russian Academy of Sciences and

authorities of range states has launched conservation-hunting programmes in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia and

Tajikistan aimed at the development of sustainably managed trophy hunting programs on argali, including

survey design, habitat assessment, GIS databases, public education, development of legislation, etc. These

programmes were supported to varying degrees by the CITES Secretariat, EU, USFWS, WWF and others.

In Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the Regional Programme on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in

Central Asia implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Government since 2009 supports activities on

sustainable management of mountain ungulates focusing on development of a legal framework, capacity

development for wildlife monitoring and improvement of hunting areas management, and in particular,

introduction of community based approaches. All assigned hunting concessions have been mapped in GIS.

Substantial support has been provided to the development of draft new hunting laws that provide for

clearer regulation and incentives for sustainable hunting and wildlife management. Community based

management approaches are demonstrated in pilot areas and capacity building for a country wide

allocation of hunting areas to groups of local hunters is underway (Rosen 2012).

In Kyrgyzstan, there is also a state research programme on the status and conservation of argali and

Siberian ibex 2010-2014, confirmed by Government decree No/ 238 of 11 October 2010. In Kyrgyzstan

and Tajikistan a methodology for monitoring argali and Siberian ibex using standardized field forms has

been developed with the help of IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group and GIZ. A Russian-language

monitoring handbook and manual on use of GPS have been developed as part of this activity.

In Mongolia, the Argali Wildlife Research Center, the Denver Zoological Foundation (DZF), WWF,

Mongolian Conservation Coalition, and the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (MAS) have cooperated on

several argali and ibex conservation and research projects since 1997, including an interdisciplinary


24

research and conservation project in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve. Some of the research has focused on

distribution, population dynamics, behavior, social structure, genetics, the level of competition between

argali and domestic sheep and goats, and protected area use. They have worked on conservation

management measures in cooperation with State officials, local hunting groups and non-profit

organizations aimed at specifically addressing trophy hunting issues, to ensure that a substantial portion of

future funds obtained from trophy hunting go to help conserve the species and support local people (Rosen

2012). They have also explored options for revenue generation, such as ecotourism, noting, however, that

the reclusive nature of argali currently renders them less than ideal candidates for ecotourism

(Amgalaanbatar and Reading 2000). However, in Ikh Nart, that is changing (Reading et al. 2005, 2011)

after over a decade of protection from poaching and habituation to argali researchers.

Activities focused on argali in Kazakhstan include improving survey methods and monitoring techniques;

joint monitoring activities with Kyrgyzstan; understanding the genetic diversity; argali restoration in the

Ulytau Mountains, and anti-poaching activities along the Kyrgyz border (Rosen 2012).

A WWF/Minstry of Foreign Affairs-Norway project in Kazakhstan supported an increase in the specially

protected areas system in the habitats of Karatau argali: Karatau Specially Protected Area (360 km2)

became one component in a system of PAs covering more than 1,500 km2 in total; established cooperation

between regional and district inspectors, the forestry system and reserve rangers; provided technical

support and organized special training for rangers. Effective protection of animals in migratory corridors

outside the borders of protected areas was also assured. As a result, the number of Karatau argali doubled

during the period of project implementation.

Fauna & Flora International is engaged in biodiversity survey, training, monitoring, capacity building and

management plan development in Zorkul State Nature Reserve in Tajikistan and Sarychat-Ertash and

Naryn State Nature Reserves in Kyrgyzstan.

A WWF project in Kyrgyzstan supports improvement of practical anti-poaching activities of Sarychat-

Ertash Strict Nature Reserve (technical support, ranger training) and enlargement of the territory of the

reserve.

The US-based NGO Panthera is supporting the development of model community-managed conservancies

in the Eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan to ensure the sustainable use of Marco Polo sheep and Siberian ibex for

tourism and regulated hunting, thus creating economic and social incentives to protect wildlife for

communities involved.

4 - FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

This section identifies and defines the overall conservation Goal, Objectives, Results and Actions of the

Plan.

4.1 Goal

To maintain and restore argali populations to favourable conservation status throughout their range.

4.2 Objectives

Objective 1: To stabilize argali numbers and range and reverse negative trends.

Objective 2: To maintain and restore intact argali habitat and migration routes.

Objective 3: To fill knowledge and information gaps.



25

4.3 Results

1.1. Poaching and other human-caused sources of mortality are reduced.

1.2. Argali is used and managed sustainably with support of local communities.

2.1. Pastures are sustainably managed and availability and quality of argali habitat have improved.

2.2. Forage shortages for argali in critical areas and times of the year are reduced.

2.3. Disturbance and displacement by herders and other human activities are minimized.

2.4. Negative impacts of mining and infrastructure development are minimized and mitigated.

2.5. Conservation management and international cooperation are maximized to maintain connectivity of

argali populations.

3.1. Sufficient information on argali status, trends, ecology and management is available to all

stakeholders.

4.1. An implementation mechanism is established

4.4 Actions

Table 3 presents the Results under each Objective, followed by the Actions grouped by result. Under each

Action, the countries are listed (using ISO codes) where its implementation is relevant. Against each

Action, the organisations leading and involved in implementation are indicated, based on the best

available knowledge.

Actions are prioritized as Essential, High, Medium, and Low.

Time scales used for each Action use the following scale:

- Immediate: completed within the next year

- Short: completed within the next 3 years

- Medium: completed within the next 5 years

- Long: completed within the next 10 years

- Ongoing: currently being implemented and should continue

- Completed: completed during preparation of the SSAP


26

Table 1: Results and corresponding Actions ranked according to their importance

Objective 1: To stabilize argali numbers and range and reverse negative trends

Result Action Priority Time scale Organisations responsible

1.1. Poaching and other

human induced

mortality are reduced

1.1.1. Implement effective anti-poaching measures addressing poaching at

all levels Applicable to: All

Essential On-going Government agencies,

Protected area managers,

Hunting associations, Hunting

area managers

1.1.2. Strengthen management capacity of trophy hunting concessions and

clearly define hunting zones and seasons.

Applicable to: Countries with trophy hunting programmes1

Essential On-going Hunting area managers,

Hunting associations, CIC,

Government agencies

1.1.3. Provide relevant training and equipment for law enforcement

officers, PA staff, and others.

Applicable to: All

High Medium Government agencies,

International Ranger

Federation, TRAFFIC,

INTERPOL, NGOs

1.1.4. Report poaching incidents to mass media and CMS.

Applicable to: All

Low Medium CMS argali contact points,

Argali Working Group (WG),

NGOs

1.1.5. Develop a confiscation policy for argali products and ensure that

benefits of retailed or auctioned seized products are reinvested in argali

conservation.

Applicable to: All

Low

Long

Government agencies

1.1.6. Address the threat of livestock-wildlife disease transmission through

vaccination of livestock in appropriate cases, effective exclusion of

livestock from PAs, health monitoring of argali and contiguous livestock

populations.

Applicable to: All

Medium

Long

Government veterinary

agencies, hunting area

managers, NGOs


27


1.2. Argali is used and

managed sustainably,

with support of local

communities

1.2.1. Involve local communities formally in the management and

sustainable use of argali and their habitat.

Applicable to: All

Essential Medium Government agencies, Herder

associations, Hunting area

managers, NGOs, Development

cooperation organizations

1.2.2. Promote long-term assignment of management rights to

communities.

Applicable to: All

High Medium Government agencies, NGOs,

Development cooperation

organizations, Community and

herder associations

1.2.3. Ensure that a percentage of hunting revenues is dedicated to argali

conservation

Applicable to: Countries with trophy hunting programs1

High Medium Government agencies, Hunting

area managers/concessions

NGOs

1.2.4. Ensure the equitable benefit sharing of revenues from trophy hunting

to local communities.


Essential Medium Government agencies, Hunting

agencies, hunting area

managers/concessions

1.2.5. Promote sustainable community-based wildlife management

programmes / trophy hunting programmes.


High Medium Hunting agencies, hunting

concessions, hunting outfitters,

NGOs, development


1.2.6. Ensure sustainable harvest of argali and compliance with CITES, EU

regulation and the US Endangered Species Act.


High Medium Law enforcement agencies,

Hunting agencies, hunting

concessions, scientific

monitors, CITES Secretariat

and argali contact points,

national CITES authorities


28


1.2.7. Review and where necessary strengthen legal and institutional

measures concerning management of hunting areas, setting of quotas and

allocation of licences and ensure their transparency.


Medium Medium National parliaments, Hunting

agencies, Hunting concessions,

CIC

NGOs (independent

monitoring), Development


1.2.8. Coordinate the allocation of quotas in trans-boundary populations

among range states.

Applicable to: Countries where trophy hunting occurs across national

boundaries

Low

Long

Government agencies, Argali

WG

1.2.9. Training law enforcement staff in implementation of CITES

regulations, identification of argali products and techniques for countering

illegal trade.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium CITES Secretariat and argali

contact points, Law

enforcement agencies,

TRAFFIC

1.2.10 Invest in small grant programmes to generate alternative livelihood

options.

Applicable to: All

Low

Long

NGOs, Government agencies

1.2.11 Discuss among all stakeholders the possibility of sustainable use of

argali in countries where trophy hunting does not exist at present.

Applicable to: All, except KG, MN, TJ

Low

Medium

Government agencies,

Protected area managers,

Hunting agencies, Hunting

associations, CITES etc.

Objective 2: To maintain and restore intact argali habitat and migration routes

2.1. Pastures are

sustainably managed

and availability and

quality for argali have

improved

2.1.1. Develop pasture management plans in key sites to maintain and

restore intact rangelands.

Applicable to: All High Medium

Government agencies,

Community and herder

associations, hunting area

managers, range biologists,

NGOs


29


2.1.2. Involve local people living on and using argali habitat to improve

land management and cohabitation of argali, livestock and people,

including through Community Conservation Incentive Agreements.

Applicable to: All

Medium Long

Government agencies, Herder

and community associations,

hunting area managers, NGOs

2.1.3. Monitor the effects of climate change on argali habitat and integrate

mitigation measures and climate change adaptation scenarios into

habitat/site management.

Applicable to: All

Medium Long


associations, Universities,

NGOs

2.1.4. Increase the effectiveness of protected area networks and hunting

concessions for argali (including trans boundary), their coverage and

interconnectivity.

Applicable to: All

High Long

Government agencies, local

communities, hunting area

managers, international

conservation NGOs

2.1.5. Provide adequate transport, equipment, and training to protected

areas and rangers

Applicable to: All

Essential Short

Government agencies, NGOs

2.2. Forage shortages for

argali in critical areas

and times of year are

reduced

2.2.1. Increase energy efficiency and use of alternative fuel by local

households to reduce the collection of fuel wood (e.g. teresken).

Applicable to: All (TJ for teresken) Low Long


and community associations,

development cooperation

organizations

2.2.2 Development of temporal and spatial restrictions on livestock grazing

and hay making to ensure adequate forage for argali during critical seasons.

Applicable to: All

High Medium


associations, hunting area

managers, NGOs

2.3. Disturbance and

displacement of argali

are minimized

2.3.1. Work with local herders to reduce the threat of guard and feral dogs

preying on argali lambs.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium


associations


30


2.3.2. Reduce or prevent disturbance at key sites from livestock herding,

poaching and hunting, mining, and recreational activities through zoning,

compensatory payments and other site management measures.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium


associations

2.4. Negative impacts of

mining and

infrastructure

development are

minimized and

mitigated

2.4.1. Ensure Environmental Impact Assessments / Strategic

Environmental Assessments are conducted rigorously and transparently.

Applicable to: All

High Long

Government agencies, IFC,

consultancy companies

2.4.2. Ensure compliance with International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Performance Standard 6 to reduce the negative impact on biodiversity of

infrastructure developments and apply appropriate suitable mitigation

measures.

Applicable to: All

High Long

Government agencies, IFC,

consultancy companies

2.4.3. Improve connectivity by removing barriers between populations and

migration corridors, and if removal is not possible, by adjusting

infrastructure (e.g. fences) to make it permeable for argali.

Applicable to: All

High Long

Government agencies; , Border

agencies, customs agencies,

NGOs

2.5. Conservation

management and

international

cooperation especially

for trans-boundary

populations is

maximized

2.5.1. Increase the capacity of protected area and hunting area managers to

monitor and sustainably manage argali populations through training.

Applicable to: All

High Medium

Government agencies, scientific

institutions, INGOs

2.5.2. Engage international agencies that provide common platforms for

knowledge sharing and best practices.

Applicable to: All

Medium Long

INGOs, Development


2.5.3. Facilitate transboundary activities including information exchange on

trade and use, joint law enforcement and anti-poaching activities;

penetration of border fences, transboundary monitoring & research,

communication and other actions related to wildlife diseases and

transboundary protected areas.

Applicable to: All countries with trans boundary populations

Medium Medium

Government agencies, INGOs,

CMS


31


2.5.4. Establish data sharing protocols and regularly submit information to

the Action Plan coordinator.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium

Argali WG

Objective 3: To fill knowledge and information gaps

3.1. Sufficient

information on argali

status, trends, ecology

and management is

available to all

stakeholders

3.1.1. Review different census methods, and methodologies for reliable

census and monitoring of argali.

Applicable to: All

High Medium

Argali WG,

IUCN Caprinae SG,

Universities

3.1.2. Develop a best-practice manual for argali monitoring using

standardised techniques and promote its use in all Range States.

Applicable to: All

High Medium

Argali WG,

IUCN Caprinae SG,

Universities

3.1.3. Implement robust monitoring programs for all argali populations.

Applicable to: All

High Medium

Argali WG,

IUCN Caprinae SG,

Universities

3.1.4. Monitor and study argali and its habitat to improve management.

Applicable to: All High Long

Universities, protected areas,

research organizations,

government agencies

3.1.5. Assess the root causes and impact of natural and human induced

threats to argali populations and the key drivers of population dynamics.

Applicable to: All

High Long

Universities, protected areas,

research organizations,

government agencies

3.1.6. Determine national capacity needs, in terms of human resources,

knowledge and facilities.

Applicable to: All

Mediu

m Long

Government agencies, INGOs

3.1.7. Establish a group of management and monitoring experts from

different countries and stakeholder groups to inform sound management

and steer Action Plan implementation.

Applicable to: All

High On-going

Argali WG, CMS


32


3.1.8. Organize training, workshops and joint monitoring missions for

management staff and scientists as well as local people.

Applicable to: All

Mediu

m Medium

Government agencies, INGOs

3.1.9. Compile a shared data pool with available information on argali

ecology and harvest indicating major knowledge gaps and research needs in

different languages.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium

Argali WG

3.1.10. Carry out a thorough genetic analysis to clarify the taxonomy of

argali.

Applicable to: All

Medium Medium

Universities


4.1. An implementation

mechanism is

established

4.1.1. Develop National Action Plans for argali and integrate these into

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans.

Applicable to: All

High Short

Government agencies

4.1.2. Conduct periodic meetings of range states to share experiences,

evaluate success and adapt management plans accordingly.

Applicable to: All

Low Long

CMS, Argali WG

4.1.3. Establish a dedicated argali page using the CMS website and a

mailing list to facilitate information sharing and coordination of joint

activities.

Applicable to: All

High Short

Argali WG, GIZ

CMS

4.1.4. Designate national lead agency and argali contact points responsible

for coordinating argali conservation and management policy and

implementation of the action plan in each range state.

Applicable to: All

Essential On-going /

Completed

Government agencies, CMS


33


4.1.5. Identify a suitable mechanism for the coordination and revision of the

Action Plan implementation activities including developing terms of

reference for the argali working group.

Applicable to: All

Essential On-going

CMS, Argali WG, Range

States, NGOs

4.1.6. Establish a formal cooperation agreement or Memorandum of

Understanding on argali among range states.

Applicable to: All

High On-going

CMS, range states

4.1.7. Submit range state monitoring data every two years for publication

on the CMS argali web page.

Applicable to: All Medium Medium

Argali WG, CMS

4.1.8. Secure funding for sustainable financing of Action Plan activities.

Applicable to: All Essential Long

Government agencies, CMS,

NGOs

4.1.9. Review and adapt or revise the action plan at regular intervals.

Applicable to: All Essential Medium

Government agencies, CMS,

NGOs

1As of 2014, range countries with current trophy hunting programmes are Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan.


34

Table 2. Results, indicators and means of verification

Result Indicators Means of verification

1.1. Poaching and other

human induced mortality

has significantly been

reduced

Improved protection for argali

in all range states

Vaccination programmes in

disease hotspots

Revised legislation where

appropriate

Adequate numbers of ranger /

inspection staff

Rangers / inspectors

adequately resourced

Livestock vaccinated in key

sites

1.2. Argali is used and

managed sustainably with

the support of local

communities

Trophy hunting operations

follow international good

practice (IUCN 2012) Quotas

are scientifically based and

sustainable

Process for setting quotas,

licences and allocating

concessions is transparent

Community involvement in

trophy hunting programmes

Transparent regulations and

quota process

Monitoring results

Conservancies established

An adequate proportion of the

revenues from trophy hunting

reinvested directly in local

community development and

conservation

2.1. Pastures are

sustainably managed and

availability and quality for

argali has improved

Pasture management plans

developed

Plans available and

implemented

2.2. Forage shortages for

argali in critical areas and

times of year are reduced

Measures included in pasture

management plans

Plans available and

implemented

2.3. Disturbance and

displacement by herders are

minimized

Measures included in pasture

management plans

Herders supportive of

reducing argali disturbance

and displacement

Plans available and

implemented

2.4. Negative impacts of

mining and infrastructure

are minimized and

mitigated

Argali and their habitat are

fully considered in

EIAs/SEAs

Fences and other barriers to

argali movements removed or

adjusted

Transparent EIAs/SEAs

conducted for all major

developments

Compliance with IFC 6

International borders

permeable for argali

2.5. Conservation

management and

international cooperation

especially for trans-

boundary populations is

maximized

PA networks include all key

areas for argali

Transboundary agreements in

place for relevant populations

Expanded PA networks

Transboundary agreements

signed

Regular intergovernmental

dialogue and information

exchange


35

Result Indicators Means of verification

3.1. Sufficient information

on argali status, trends,

ecology and management is

available to all stakeholders

Standard monitoring methods

in use

Monitoring programs for all

argali populations in place

Needs and resource

assessments undertaken

Genetic analysis completed

Best practice monitoring

manual available

Monitoring results available

Assessments available

Taxonomy of argali clarified

4.1. An implementation

mechanism is established

Argali National Action Plans

developed

Argali page on CMS website

established

Lead government agencies

and argali contact points

appointed

Argali Working Group TORs

agreed

MOU/other argali agreement

established

Funding plan developed

Action Plans published

Webpage available

Argali Working Group

established and functional

TORs published

MOU / agreement published

Funding bids submitted to

donors


36

5 - REFERENCES Amgalanbaatar, S. and Reading, R.P. (2000). Altai argali. Pp. 5-9 in: R.P. Reading and B. Miller, eds.

Endangered animals: conflicting issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., Lkhagvasuren, B. and Batsukh, N. (2002). Argali sheep (Ovis

ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. Pirineos 157: 129-150.

Amgalanbaatar, S., Shagdarsuren, O., Reading, R. and Onon, Yo. (2006). Pasture overlap between

argali sheep and livestock in state border area of Uvs Province. In: D. Dash (ed.), Natural

conditions, reserves, and biodiversity of the Mongolian Altai-Sayan Eco region, pp. 88-92.

Altai-Sayan UNDP-GEF Project, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Azimov, Zh., ed. (2009). The Red Data Book of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Vol. II Animals. Tashkent,

Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Baldus, R.D., Damm, G.R. & Wollscheid, K. eds. (2008). Best practices in sustainable hunting. A

guide to best practices from around the world. Budapest, CIC. (CIC Technical Series

Publication No. 1).

Bhatnagar, Y. V. (2003). Species of the Trans-Himalaya and other arid tracts. Pp. 44-49 in: S.

Sathyakumar and Y. V. Bhatnagar (eds), ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas.

Bu, H., Tian, L., Hasibatu and Chen. R. B. (1998). Argali of Inner Mongolia. Chinese Wildlife 19: 8-9.

Bunch, T.D., Vorontsov, N.N., Lyapunova, E.A. and Hoffmann, R.S. (1998). Chromosome number of

Severtzov’s Sheep (Ovis ammon severtzovi): G-banded karyotype comparisons within Ovis.

Journal of Heredity 89: 266-269.

Berber, A.P. (2007). The mountain sheep of Kazakhstan’s highlands. Karaganda. (In Russian)

Breckle, S.W. and Wucherer, W. (2006). Vegetation of the Pamir (Tajikistan): land use and

desertification problems. Pp. 225-237 in E.M. Spehn, M. Liberman and C. Korner, eds. Land

use change and mountain biodiversity. London, Taylor & Francis.

Damm, G, and Franco, N. (In press). CIC Caprinae atlas of the world. International Council for Game

and Wildlife Conservation.

Chanchani, P., Rawat, G.S. and Goyal, S.P. (2010). Unveiling a wildlife haven: status and distribution

of four Trans-Himalayan ungulates in Sikkim, India. Oryx 44: 366-375.

Chetri, M. and Pokharel, A. (2005).Status and Distribution of Blue Sheep, Tibetan Argali and the

Kiang in DamodarKunda Area, Upper Mustang, Nepal. Our Nature 3:56-62.

Davletbakov, A.T. (2012). Survey of Argali and Ibex as well as other mammal species in the territory

of Kyrgyzstan. Report of the Project Sustainable Management of Mountain Ungulates in

Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek.

Delorme, J.P. (2002). Conservation Durable de l’Argali des Kara Tau (Ovis ammon nigrimontana).

Identification du Projet Mission au Kazakhstan et à Moscou, du 03 au 11/12/2002. IGF, Paris.

Diment, A., Hotham, P. and Mallon, D. (2012). First biodiversity survey of Zorkul reserve, Pamirs,

Tajikistan. Oryx 46:13.

Fedosenko, A.K. (2000). Argali in Russia and adjacent countries – Population status, ecology,

behaviour, protection, and economic use. Moscow, GU “Tsentrookhotkontrol”: 291 pp. (In

Russian).

Fedosenko, A.K. and Blank, D.A. (2005). Ovis ammon. Mammalian Species 773: 1-15.

Fox, J. and Johnsingh, J.T.L. (1997). India. In: D.M. Shackleton (ed.), Wild Sheep and Goats and

Their Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae, pp. 215-231.

IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Geist, V. (1991). On the taxonomy of giant sheep (Ovis ammon). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:

706-723.

Groves, C.P. & Grubb, P. (2011). Ungulate taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Harris, R.B. (2008). Wildlife Conservation in China: preserving the habitat of China’s Wild West.

M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York.

Harris, R.B. (2010). Argali on the Tibetan plateau. Galemys 22: 55-80.

Harris, R.B. and Miller, D.J. (1995). Overlap in summer habitats and diets of Tibetan Plateau

ungulates. Mammalia 59: 197–212.


37

Harris, R.B. & Reading, R. (2008). Ovis ammon. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species. Version 2013.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 05 August 2013.

Harris, R.B. and Winnie Jr., J. (2008). Status update and progress report: Marco Polo argali in the

Afghan Pamir. Caprinae News 2008 (1): 1-2.

Harris, R.B., Wingard, G. and Bi, J-h. (2009). Status of the least understood wild sheep, the

endangered northern Chinese argali (Ovis ammon jubata). Final Report. Unpublished report to

the Sir Peter Scott Fund. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Harris, R.B., Amish, S., Beja-Pereira, A., Godinho, R., Costa,V., Luikart, G. (2010). Argali

Abundance in the Afghan Pamir Using Capture–Recapture Modelling From Fecal DNA.

Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 668–677.

Harvell, C.D., Mitchell, C.E., Ward, J.R., Altizer, S., Dobson, A.P., Ostfeld, R.S., and M.D. Samuel.

(2002). Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 296: 2158-

2162.

Heptner, V.G., Nasimovich, A.A. and Bannikov, A.G. (1961). Mammals of the Soviet Union. I.

Ungulates. Moscow, Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).

Hess, R., Bollmann, K., Rasool, G., Chaudrhy, A.A., Virk, A.T. and Ahmad, A. (1997). Pakistan. In:

D.M. Shackleton (ed.), Wild Sheep and Goats and Their Relatives: Status Survey and

Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae, pp. 239-260. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

ICIMOD (2009) Mountain Biodiversity and Climate Change. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. ISBN

9789291151240.

IPCC AR4 (2007). Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis.” In: Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IUCN (2012). IUCN SSC Guiding principles on trophy hunting as a tool for creating conservation

incentives. Ver. 1.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Jnawali, S.R., Baral, H.S., Lee, S., Acharya, K.P., Upadhyay, G.P., Pandey, M., Shrestha, R., Joshi,

D., Laminchhane, B.R., Griffiths, J., Khatiwada, A. P., Subedi, N. and Amin, R. (compilers)

(2011). The Status of Nepal Mammals: The National Red List Series. Department of National

Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Kapitanova, D.V., Lopatin, A.V., Subbotin, A.E. & Wall, W.A. (2004). Cranial morphometry and

taxonomy of argali Ovis ammon (Artiodactyla, Bovidae) from the former Soviet Union and

Mongolia. Russian Journal of Theriology 3: 89-106.

Kashkarov, E.P., Vyrypaev V.A., Skorobogach, A.V., Nolfin G. B., Gribkov A.B., Barashkova A.N.,

Ishchenko I. V. (2008). Argali Ovis ammon ammon Linnaeus, 1758: The role of marginal

populations in the strategy for conservation of the subspecies. Journal Ritm 2: 255-291.

Liu, W.L. and Yin, B.G. (1993). Precious wildlife of Tibet and its protection. China Forestry Press,

Beijing, China.

Luikart, G., Amish, S., Winnie, J., Godinho, R., Beja-Pereira, A. Allendorf, F.W. and Harris, F.W.

(2011). High connectivity among Argali from Afghanistan and adjacent countries: Assessment

using neutral and candidate gene microsatellites. Conservation Genetics 12: 921-931.

Lydekker R. (1898). Wild Oxen, Sheep, and Goats of All Lands. London. Rowland Ward: 239 pp.

Mallon, D. (2013) Trophy hunting of CITES-listed species in Central Asia. TRAFFIC report for the

CITES Secretariat.

Mallon, D.P., Dulamtseren, S., Bold, A., Reading, R.P. and Amgalanbaatar, S. (1997).

Mongolia. In: D.M. Shackleton and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (eds), Wild Sheep and

Goats and Their Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae. Pp. 193-

201. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Maroney, R.L. (2006). Community based wildlife management planning in protected areas: the case of

Altai argali in Mongolia. In: D.J. Bedunah, E.D. McArthur and M. Fernandez-Gimenez (eds).

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and

Future Challenges. 2004, January 27, pp. 37-49. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


38

Michel, S. & Muratov, R. (2010). Survey on Marco Polo Sheep and other mammal species in the

Eastern Pamir (Republic of Tajikistan, GBAO). Nature Protection Team, Khorog and Institute

of Zoology and Parasitology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan. 28 pp.

Nadler, C.F. Lay, D.M. and Hassinger, J.D. (1971). Cytogenetic analyses of wild sheep populations in

northern Iran. Cytogenetics 10: 137-152.

Namgail, T. (2004). Interactions between argali and livestock, Gya-Miru Wildlife Sanctuary, Ladakh,

India. Final Project Report. International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, WA, USA.

Namgail, T., Fox, J.L. and Bhatnager, Y.V. (2007). Habitat shift and time budget of the Tibetan argali:

the influence of livestock grazing. Ecological Research 22: 25-31.

Namgail, T. Fox, J.L. and Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2009). Status and distribution of the Near Threatened

Tibetan argali Ovis ammon hodgsoni in Ladakh, India: effect of a hunting ban. Oryx 43: 288-

291.

Nasonov N.V. (1923). Geographical distribution of Old-World wild sheep. Petrograd: 255 pp. (in

Russian).

Ostrowski, S. Rajabi, A.M. and Noori, H. (2009). Livestock and Marco Polo sheep: assessing the risk

of health conflicts in Afghan Pamir, Asia Wildlife Conservation Society Unpublished Report,

New York, USA, 54 pp.

Paltsyn, M. (2001). The current distribution of the argali mountain sheep. Russian Conservation News

25: 17-19.

Pandey, S. (2002). Status and distribution of some Caprids in Himachal Pradesh. Pp. 30-33 in: S.

Sathyakumar and Y.V. Bhatnagar (eds), ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas.

Petocz, R.G., Habibi, K., Jamil, A. and Wassey, A. (1978). Report on the Afghan Pamir. Part 2:

Biology of the Marco Polo sheep. UNDP/FAO/Dept. Forests & Range/Min.

Pfeffer, P. (1967). Le mouflon de Corse (Ovis ammon musimon Schreber, 1782); position

systématique, écologie et éthologie comparées. Mammalia 31 (supplément): 1-262.

Rahimov N. andAmirov Z. (2011). Report on the assessment of the current distribution and status of

the population of Severtzov sheep (Ovis ammon severtzovi) in Tajikistan. Nature and

Biodiversity Conservation Union of Tajikistan. Dushanbe. 8 p. (in Russian).

Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Wingard, G. J., Kenny, D. and DeNicola, A. (2005). Ecology of

argali in Ikh Nartiin Chuluu, Dornogobi Aymag. Erforschung Biologischer Ressourcen der

Mongolei 9: 77-89.

Reading, R.P., Kenny, D. and Steinhauer-Burkart, B. (2011). Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, 2nd Edition.

Nature-Guide No. 4, Mongolia. ECO Nature Edition Steinhauer-Burkart OHG, Oberaula,

Germany.

Rosen, T. (2012). Analyzing Gaps and Options for Enhancing Argali Conservation in Central Asia

within the Context of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals. Report prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of

Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of

Natural Resources in Central Asia.

Saidov, A. (2007). PATCA Report: the survey of Mammals Pamir-Alai trans boundary conservation

area. Dushanbe.

Severtzov N.A. 1873. Arkhar (Wild Sheep). Priroda. Vol. 1. P. 144-245 (in Russian). +AS

Sapozhnikov, G.N. 1976. Wild sheep (genus Ovis) of Tajikistan. Donish Press,

Dushanbe (in Russian).

Schaller, G.B. (1977). Mountain Monarchs. Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Schaller, G.B. (1998). Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Schaller, G.B. and Kang, A.L. (2008). Status of Marco Polo sheep Ovis ammon polii in China and

adjacent countries: conservation of a vulnerable subspecies. Oryx 42: 100-106.

Shackleton, D.M. (ed.) (1997), Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and

conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Shackleton, D.M. and Lovari, S. (1997). Classification adopted for the Caprinae survey. In: D.M.

Shackleton, ed. Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action

plan for Caprinae, pp. 9-14. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UK.


39

Sharma, T.R and Lachungpa, U. (2003). Status, distribution and management of mountain ungulates in

Sikkim. Pp. 38-49 in: S. Sathyakumar and Y.V. Bhatnagar (eds), ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and

Protected Areas.

Shrestha, R., Wegge, P. and Koirala, R. A. (2005). Summer diets of wild and domestic ungulates in

Nepal Himalaya. Journal of Zoology (London) 266: 111-119.

Singh, N.J. (2008). Animal - Habitat relationships in high altitude rangelands. PhD Dissertation.

University of Tromso, Norway.

Singh, N.J. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011). Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia: current constraints

and future potential. Oryx 45: 38-49.

Singh, N.J., Amgalanbaatar, S. and Reading, R.P. (2010a). Grouping patterns of argali in Ikh Nart

Nature Reserve, Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences 8(2): 7-13.

Singh, N.J., Bonenfant, C., Yoccoz, N.G., Cote, S.D. (2010b). Sexual segregation in Eurasian wild

sheep. Behavioural Ecology 21: 410–418.

Singh, N.J., Yoccoz, N.G., Bhatnagar, Y.V. and Fox, J.L. (2009). Using habitat suitability models to

sample rare species in high-altitude ecosystems: A case study with Tibetan argali. Biodiversity

and Conservation: 18: 2893-2908.

Subbotin, A.E., Kapitanova, D.B. and Lopatin, A.V. (2007). Factors of craniometrical variability in

argali using an example of Ovis ammon polii. Doklady Biological Science 516: 400-402.

Tsalkin V.I. (1951). Wild sheep of Europe and Asia. Moscow: Moscow Natural History Society

(MOIP). (in Russian).

Tserenbataa, T., Ramey II, R.R., Ryder, O.A., Quinn, T.W. and Reading, R.P. (2004).A population

genetic comparison of argali sheep (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia using the ND5 gene of mtDNA;

implications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 13: 1333-1339.

Ul-Haq, S. (2003). Mountain ungulates of Ladakh, Jammu, and Kashmir. Pp. 27-33 in: S.

Sathyakumar and Y.V. Bhatnagar (eds), ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas.

Valdez R. (1982). The Wild Sheep of the World. Mesilla, New Mexico: The Wild Goat and Sheep

International. 186 pp.

Vorobeev, G.G. and Van der Ven, J. (2003). Looking at Mammals in Kyrgyzia. OFTsIR, Bishkek. (In

Russian and English). 246 pp.

Wang, S., ed. (1998). China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals. Mammalia. Science Press,

Beijing.

Wang, Y.X. (2003). A Complete Checklist of Mammal Species and Subspecies in China (A Taxonomic

and Geographic Reference). China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, China.

Wang, X. M. and Schaller, G.B. (1996). Status or large mammals in western Inner Mongolia, China.

Journal of East China Normal University Natural Science 12: 93-104.

Wang, S., Gu Jinghe, Hu Defu, Luo Ning, Zhang Yongzu, Wang Zhongyi, Yang Rongsheng and Cai

Quiquan. (1997). China. In: D. M. Shackleton and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group

(eds), Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and action plan for Caprinae, pp.

148-172. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Wangchuk, T. (2004). A field guide to the mammals of Bhutan. Thimpu, Bhutan, Department of

Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan.

WCS (2007). The Pamirs Trans boundary Protected Area - A report on the 2006 International

Workshop on Wildlife and Habitat Conservation in the Pamirs.

WCS (2012). The Tajik Pamirs: Trans boundary Conservation and Management - A Mission in

Partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society, the US Forest Service, and the Committee

for Environmental Protection under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. Report of

Stakeholder Consultations and Final Workshop.

Wegge, P. and Oli, M.K. (1997). Nepal. In: D.M. Shackleton (ed.), Wild Sheep and Goats and Their

Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae, pp. 231-239. IUCN/SSC

Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland, UK and Cambridge, UK.

Weinberg, P.I., Fedosenko, A.K., Arabuli, A.B., Myslenkov, A., Romashin, A.V., Voloshina, I. and

Zheleznov, N. (1997). The Commonwealth of Independent States (former USSR). In: D.M.

Shackleton, ed. Wild Sheep and Goats and their Relatives. Status Survey and Action Plan for

Caprinae, pp. 172-193. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.


40

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and

Geographic Reference. Third edition. Two vols. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.

Wingard, G.J., Harris, R.B., Pletscher, D.H., Bedunah, D.J., Bayart, M., Sukh, A. and Reading, R.P.

(2011). Argali food habits and dietary overlap with domestic livestock in Ikh Nart Nature

Reserve, Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments 75: 138-145.

Wu, C.H., Zhang, Y.P., Bunch, T.D., Wang, S. and Wang. W. (2003). Mitochondrial control region

sequence variation within the argali wild sheep (Ovis ammon): evolution and conservation

relevance. Mammalia 67: 109-118.

WWF (2011). Conservation of Altai argali in the transboundary zone of Russia and Mongolia. 117 p.

(in Russian).

Young, J.K., Olson, K.A., Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S. and Berger, J. (2011). Is wildlife going to

the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-ranging dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience 61: 125-

132.

Zheng, J., ed. (2003). Qinghai wildlife resources and management. Qinghai People’s Publishing

House, Xining, China.


41

ANNEX 1. Argali classification used by CIC (Damm and Franco in press)

The CIC phenotype classification is not proposed as a taxonomic tool, as opposed to

molecular or morphometric approaches. It should rather be seen as complimentary to these

methods. The CIC Phenotype System categorizes argali 15 geographically and

morphologically identifiable phenotypes, sometimes based on admittedly vague points of

differentiation in both aspects, but always applying a combination of genotype + environment

+ conservation to describe them along morphological and physiological characters,

geographical distribution range and last, but not least, conservation and use systems.

We propose 15 argali phenotypes:

The wild sheep group occurring in Mongolia with distribution ranges extending into

neighboring countries is described as containing four phenotypes - Altai argali (O. a.

ammon), Khangai argali (O. a. darwini) and Gobi argali (O. a. darwini) as well as the

probably extinct Shansi argali (O. a. jubata) from Sino-Mongolian border region in

Nei Mongol AR.

The argali from the Pamirs, the Alai Mountains (Pamir argali, O. a. polii) and the

southern Tian Shan (Kyrgyz argali – putative O. a. humei) are described separately,

with average horn length as a major criterion.

The wild sheep group occurring in the central and northern Tian Shan Mountain

system and Kazakhstan is described with 6 phenotypes: Tian Shan argali (O. a.

karelini), Dzungarian argali (putative O. a. littledalei), Sair argali (putative O. a.

sairensis), Kuruk Tagh argali (putative O. a. adametzi - may also be a member of the

hodgsonii group), Karaganda argali (O. a. collium) and Kara Tau argali (O. a.

nigrimontana). We recognize that the description of morphology and distribution

ranges, especially for karelini and littledalei presents problems as evidenced in often

contradictory literature sources, type localities and scant anecdotal descriptions.

The argali (O. a. hodgsonii) from the Tibetan Plateau are separated into a northern and

southern phenotype. Argali from the northeastern fork of the Altun Shan and the

various Nanshan ranges to the northeast of the Qaidam Pendi and north of the line of

lakes and depressions from the Qaidam Pendi to Qinghai Lake are classified as the

Northern Tibetan argali phenotype (O. a. hodgsonii, with O. a. dalai-lamae a

secondary synonym). All other argali on the Tibetan Plateau, including the southern

fork of the Altun Shan and the mountains south of the Qaidam Basin and Qinghai

Lake are recognized as Himalayan or Tibetan Argali Phenotype.

The Nura Tau argali (O. a. severtzovi) for the south western fringes of the argali range.


42

Putative scientific name(s) CIC phenotypes Other common and/or putative scientific names and synonyms

Taxon Notes

Ovis ammon ammon Linnaeus [1758] 1766

Altai argali Also known as Altay Argali. Capra ammon, Linnaeus 1758 & 1766; Rupicapra cornubus arietinis, Gmelin 1758; Musimon asiaticus, Pallas 1776; Ovis argali, Pallas 1777; O. argali, Boddaert 1785; O. argali altaica, Severtzov 1873; O. ammon typica, Lydekker 1898; O. a. przewalskii Nasonov 1923

Ovis ammon darwini Przewalski 1883

Khangai argali

ka Hangai, Hangay or Mid-Altai Argali (some authors describe Khangai Argali as O. a. ammon). O. a. daurica, Severtzov 1873 (probably extinct); O. [darvini] darwini, Przewalski 1883; O. a. kozlovi, Nasonov 1913; O. a. intermedia, Gromova 1936

Gobi argali

Ovis ammon jubata Peters 1876

Northern Chinese argali

O. a. mongolica, Severtzov 1873; O. a. comosa, Hollister 1919; O .a. commosa, Sjölander 1922

Ovis ammon adametzi Kowarzik, 1913

Kuruk Tagh argali Aka Kuruktag Argali. Most authors consider adametzi as putative and synonymize Kuruk Tagh Argali either with O. a. darwini or O. a.hodgsonii

Ovis ammon hodgsonii Blyth 1840

Northern Tibetan argali

Aka Altun Shan or Gansu Argali. Some authors describe the Northern Tibetan Argali as [putative] O. a. dalai-lamae, Przewalski, 1888

Tibetan argali Aka Himalayan Argali. O. a.(var.), Hodgson 1833; O. nayaur, Hodgson 1833; O. hodgsoni, Blyth 1840; O. ammonoides, Hodgson 1841; Caprovis bambhera, Gray 1852; Caprovis argali, Adams 1858; O. blythi, Severtzov 1873; O. brookei, Ward 1874; O. henrii, Milne-Edwards 1892

Ovis ammon collium Severtzov 1873

Karaganda argali Aka Semipalatinsk or Kazakhstan Argali. O. collium, Severtzov 1873; O. a. collium var. albula, Nasonov 1914; O. a. collium var. obscura, Nasonov 1923. Some authors classify this phenotype as O. a. karelini

Ovis ammon sairensis Lydekker, 1898

Sair argali O. sairensis, Lydekker 1898. Most authors consider sairensis as putative and classify this phenotype as O. a. karelini

Ovis ammon littledalei Lydekker 1902

Dzungarian argali Aka Littledale’s Argali. O. sairensis littledalei, Lydekker 1902; O. poli littledalei, Nasonov 1923. Most authors consider littledalei as putative and classify it as O. a. karelini

Ovis ammon karelini Severtzov 1873

Tian Shan Argali Aka Karelini Argali. O. karelini, Severtzov 1873; O. heinsii, Severtzov 1873; O. poll karelini, Lydekker 1898; O. a. heinsii, Lydekker 1912; O. polii karelini var. melanopyga, Nasonov 1914; O. polii nassonovi ,Laptev 1929. Some authors include collium, sairensis and littledalei in karelini

Ovis ammon nigrimontana Nasonov 1923

Kara Tau argali Aka Bukharan or Turkestan Argali. O. nigrimontana, Severtzov 1873; O. polii nigrimontana, Nasonov 1923; O. a. nigrimontana, Lydekker 1909

Ovis ammon humei Lydekker 1913

Kyrgyz argali Aka Kashgarian or Hume’s Argali. Most authors consider humei as putative and include it either in O. a. polii or karelini. The US-ESA classified as it O. a. polii

Ovis ammon polii Blyth 1841

Pamir argali Aka Marco Polo Argali. O. poli, Blyth 1840; O. sculptorum, Blyth 1840; O. poli typica, Lydekker 1898; O.poloi, de Pousargues 1898; Caprovis polii Brehm, 1901; O. a. poli, Lydekker 1909; O. poloi poloi, Nasanov 1914; O. p. polii, Nasanov 1923; O. a. polio, Pfeffer 1967

Ovis ammon severtzovi Nasonov 1914

Nura Tau Argali Aka Kyzyl Kum or Severtzov’s Argali. Previously known as Severtzov's Urial. O. severtzovi, Nasonov 1914; O. a. severtzov, Nasonov 1923

Documents

CONVENTION SUR Distribution: Générale LES ESPECES · Bonn, Allemagne, 1-3 juillet 2014 Point 5.1.3 de l’ordre du jour PROJET DU PLAN D’ACTION INTERNATIONAL PAR ESPÈCE POUR